The predicate epo-acc:refersToNotice was added between epo-acc:ESPDRequest and epo:Notice

There is an idea in the ESPD community to remove certain data from the ESPD, since the data is already in the Notice, so the ESPD Request can focus only on the Qualification Criteria.

It was decided that docref-content-type controlled vocabulary is not needed in the ePO.

We should take a decision on whether to remove the epo-acc:concernsProcedure predicate between epo-acc:ESPDRequest and epo:Procedure:

Why are there two relations between cac:TenderingCriterion and cac:ProcurementProjectLot?
They are used to express the different cardinalities between Selection Criterion and Exclusion Ground.
Exclusion Ground is at the Procedure level and not at the Lot level.

The cac:TenderingCriterion concept includes the attribute ProcurementProjectLotReference, but has also links to cac:ProcurementProjectLot class as depicted below:

This should be handled by the ESPD team.

The Legislation concept is only a reference to the actual legislation, so it should not be treated as a Document.

A question once again came up about the Criterion versus Subcriterion. Pascaline asked why don’t we create a special class for SubCriterion or for REQUIREMENT_GROUP. After that it was said that Subcriterion might not really be used in ESPD Request.

It was mentioned that at the ePO level a Subcriterion is just another Criterion and we don’t need to create it. It was decided that at the moment we will keep the model as it is, without differentiating between ProcurementCriterion and Subcriterion.

The first QUESTION_SUBGROUP for the General Yearly Turnover use-case was discussed:

The proposed instantiation for the above QUESTION_SUBGROUP is:

The second QUESTION_SUBGROUP is presented:

with its proposed instantiation:

Pascaline will look at the rest of 3 question subgroups for the next time.
Continued with presenting where the documentation for the ePO exists.