Working Group Meeting

Based on that, each contract will have a single epo-not:ContractModificationNotice.

A Contract always mentions Lots not LotGroups.

Are there actual notices with Groups of Lots? just a few but most were not done correctly.

It makes sense to have a Tender for a group of lots.

A predicate epo:concernsLotGroup connecting epo:ContractLotCompletionInformation with epo:LotGroup was added.

Predicate epo:describesLotCompletion was renamed epo:concernsLot.

Both OPT-050-Lot and OPT-050-Part fields describe a status saying if the document is in an Official Language or not.

A solution to this would be to infer the value of this field by using the corresponding BT-708-Lot/Part and BT-737-Lot/Part fields.

Another problem is that since only a URL for procurement documents is provided, this URL may point to one or many procurement documents, resulting in many instances of access term.

Issue #732 was referenced. In that ticket it was mentioned that 708 and 737 are mutually exclusive, proving that indeed the OPT-050-Lot and OPT-050-Part values can be inferred by BT-708-Lot/Part and BT-737-Lot/Part fields. Although there is a mistake in the mappings for these fields as they go through a procurement document.

It was decided that the attribute should be kept because it is mandatory for the standard forms.

It was also mentioned that there should not be a mapping for BT-14 in eForms since it can be inferred.