Working Group Meeting
Date: 13/05/2025
Participants: Natalie Muric,
Model editor: Andreea Passare
Note editor: Achilles Dougalis
Discussion
-
The ePayment ORSD was discussed.
-
The introduction was modified as follows:
-
"In the procurement domain, ePayment refers to the payment data. ePayment data is checked against the invoice data in a Contract registry.“
-
-
It was discussed that the use cases, user stories and natural language statements should be fulfilled by the next WGM.
-
How is the bank account information handled in Ontology? It is done by Identifiers.
-
It was discussed that the ePayment expert should be consulted for which roles should be referenced from the RemittanceAdviceLine and which ones from the remittance advice, in a future WGM.
-
Exchange Rate UBL BG was discussed. A use-case was requested:
-
The exchange rate is required when dealing with different currencies. If the invoice and the Remittance Advice use different currencies.
-
-
The Contract describing the Exchange was discussed. It should not be modeled as an ePO contract.
-
-
ePO 5.1.0 github issues were discussed:
-
Issue #669 was discussed and commented as follows:
-
"Currently the use-case is eForms where the legal-basis codelist is used. We propose to ask EU vocabularies to add references to ELI resources for the Legal-basis codelist".
-
The ticket was closed as there are not any changes required in the Ontology\
-
-
Issue #706 was moved to ePO 6.0.0 milestone.
-
It was discussed that ESPD related issues should be dealt with after the pre-award concepts are integrated in the Ontology.
-
It was discussed that the mapping tickets can be dealt with in ePO 5.1.0-rc2.
-
Issue #777 Review request was discussed:
-
It was decided that epo:answersReviewRequest predicate will be relaxed from 1 to [0..*]
-
This was done because in eForms it is not known whether a review decision is about a specific review request, and also, sometimes a review decision may answer multiple review requests.
-
-
-
Issue #774 was discussed:
-
It was decided to ask the fulfilment expert more information on a use-case regarding the ticket.
-
-
Issue #640 was discussed, closed, and converted to an alignment discussion.
-
Issue #711 was discussed. And was put back in milestone 5.0.0 since it was implemented then.
-
Issue #787 was discussed, and converted to an alignment discussion.
-
It was discussed that BT-271 is an early evaluation and BT-157 is specified for the result .
-
It was also discussed that The definition for BT-271 is misleading and the BT-271 should not be used for groups of Lots.
-
