New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Organisation Roles and Subroles #240
Comments
Issue related to #233 |
The approach of the meeting on the 31st March and 02nd April was focused on the continuation of the Organization Roles analysis. This analysis aims to check whether the eProcurement Ontology covers all the codes listed in the Organization code list (https://op.europa.eu/en/web/eu-vocabularies/at-dataset/-/resource/dataset/organisation-role). During the meeting on the 31st of March, the main points discussed were about the Subcontractor concept, and they are the following ones:
During the meeting on the 02nd of April, the main points discussed were the following ones: • The WG worked in the ePO definition for the Subcontractor concept. The definition agreed with the WG was as follow: Additional information For some procedures, the subcontractor signs as well the contract between the buyer and the contractor. |
The approach of the meeting on the 7th April was focused on the continuation of the Organisation Roles and Subroles discussion. The WG discussed on the properties that links ProcedureTerms to Organizations: +epo:hasWorkingConditionsInformation, +epo:hasEnvironmentalProtectionInformation, +epo:hasEmploymentProtectionInformation, +epo:providesTaxRegulatoryInformation, +epo:hasAdditionalInformationProvidedBy. According to the WG these properties inform the Economic Operator about where he can find information about one of these specific topics. The WG discussed these properties should point to the ContactPoint and not to the Organisation. The other possibility discussed was to have one property that group all these properties. Moreover, ContactPoint would have a property/attribute to categorise the ContactPoint. As a decision of the discussion, the WG decided to create a class named “ReferenceFramework” which is linked to the Procedure and the Organisation class. Moreover, the WG said that the Contact Point and the Address class are also needed because we need to know the Postal address for example. Some of the attributes added to this new class ReferenceFramework were: Type (Code), Title (Text), Description (Text). Also, a new code list named “reference-information-type” was created. The result of this discussion can be consulted in the Procurement Terms diagram. |
The approach of the meetings on the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th of April was focused on the continuation of the Organisation Roles and Subroles discussion. For this discussion, the WG continued working on the ePO mapping to the euvocabularies code list. The mapping can be consulted in the “Organization-roles” sheet of the mapping file. In that sheet, the corresponding mapping to each code can be consulted. Moreover, and as a summary of the meetings, the following discussions and modelling actions took place:
Additional Information:
|
During the meeting on the 21st of April, the WG continue working on the Organisation Roles and Subroles in order to finalise the mapping. Everis, as an action point assigned to them, explained that two new properties were created. One to say that Agent creates (Creator) a Document and another one to say that Role submits a Document (eSender). The WG, after discussing both properties, said that the property for the sender should link the Agent and Document and not the role and document. It was decided that the creator was not needed as this is information is transactional and held by the internal systems. The WG also worked on the definition that everis created for the distinction between the Role and Function concepts. The WG reviewed a worked in a more clear definition for the distinction of both concepts. The final result of the work was as follows:
Additional information The concept of 'role' is different from the concept of 'function'. However, functions can be carried out by procurement-related roles and other domain-related agents. Please refer to the class 'Function' to see the difference.
Additional Information |
In the latest of ePO release, 3.0.1, all roles/subroles contained within the code lists Organisation Role and [Organisation subrole] (https://op.europa.eu/en/web/eu-vocabularies/at-dataset/-/resource/dataset/organisation-subrole) from EU Vocabularies are represented as concepts/properties in the ontology. |
The approach of the meetings on the 24th and 26th of March were focused on the analysis of the code lists Organisation Role (https://op.europa.eu/en/web/eu-vocabularies/at-dataset/-/resource/dataset/organisation-role) and Organisation subrole (https://op.europa.eu/en/web/eu-vocabularies/at-dataset/-/resource/dataset/organisation-subrole) from EU Vocabularies.
The purpose of this analysis was to check whether the codes contained in both lists are represented in ePO through either classes or attributes.
The WG started the analysis by the Organisation Roles code list, and the following concepts were discussed:
- Buyer
- Beneficial Owner (BO)
- Central purchasing body acquiring supplies and/or services intended for other buyers
- Central purchasing body awarding public contracts or concluding framework agreements for works, supplies or services intended for other buyers
- Winner
- Subcontractor
From the discussion of this codes the following modelling actions took place:
• BO should not be from role to role as we had. We deleted the link to Buyer and we decided that the BO is a property between Person class and Business
• The property "delegatesAncillaryActivitiesOn" between Buyer and ProcurementServiceProvider were removed
The conclusion of the analysis can be consulted in the sheet "Organisation-roles" of the mappings.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: