Working Group meeting
Date: 24/10/2024
Participants: Ioannis Fountoukidis, Natalie Muric
Model editor: Achilles Dougalis
Note editor: Grzegorz Kostkowski
Discussions
-
Following GitHub issues (tickets) from the eForm Requirements project were analysed during the meeting:
-
-
The term BT-300 was checked in the eForms Annex.
-
-
The Part Procurement concept was reviewed in the conceptual model. It’s a preliminary concept for a potential procurement, which may later become a procedure, lot, or be abandoned entirely.
-
It was determined that epo:LotGroup and epo:PlannedProcurementPart classes do not have the epo:hasAdditionalInformation attribute that is requested in the ticket.
-
The findings were written down in the ticket description:
-
-
#529
-
The value set of at-voc:timeperiod was reviewed. It was agreed that the property shouldn’t be mandatory and that it must be possible to set a specific time period.
-
It was stated that there are several other reported issues related to the time period, and that these also need to be analysed before the change can be made. No further actions were taken on this ticket.
-
-
#592
-
The Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) and Framework Agreement (FA) concepts were discussed and explained. Both DPS and FA have defined durations. The DPS establishes a list of potential suppliers, but it’s not a Contract itself. In contrast, the FA is a formal, legally binding Contract established with one or more suppliers. Another distinction is related to the level of formality, with DPS not requiring signatures and FAs requiring them.
-
BG-36 description was checked in the eForms Annex:
-
-
It was clarified that what is required is to map all BTs within BG-36 (e.g. BT-536) and not the BG-36 itself.
-
It was discovered that eForms doesn’t represent BT-36 correctly. The term is associated with Lot and not Contract.
-
The relevant epo:hasEstimatedDuration property was checked in the glossary and in the conceptual model. It was confirmed that the necessary property is already defined for epo:Contract and, due to inheritance, for epo:FrameworkAgreement as well.
-
Clarifications on the nomenclature were provided, and the Official Journal of the European Union was reviewed as the reference.
The Framework Agreement, DPS and Electronic Auction are all considered to be techniques.
The Electronic Catalogue is an instrument.
It was stated that the Official Journal of the European Union does not provide a clear distinction between techniques and instruments.
-
It was explained that the ontology currently doesn’t utilise epo:hasEstimatedDuration. Only the epo:hasPlannedDuration is employed. It was suggested that potential use cases for the former might emerge during the catalogue modelling process. Thus it was decided to expand the existing definition of epo:hasEstimatedDuration.
-
The analysis was concluded with the following comment posted:
-
This needs to be further discussed during a WG meeting.
-
#579
-
The following proposal has been made:
-
This needs to be further discussed during a WG meeting. * #591 It was confirmed that the term is correctly defined in the ontology. The findings has been published in a new post:
-
#599
-
Outcome of the initial investigation has been published in a post:
-
