Unmappable eForms fields in PIN, CEI and T02 notice subtypes

[csnyulas]

While trying to map the fields that can be found only in PIN, CEI and T01/T02 eForms notice subtypes, we encountered the following fields that do not seem to be mappable to EPO 4.0.0. (grouped by category):

Classification type

• BT-26(m)-Part: Classification Type (e.g. CPV)
• BT-26(a)-Part: Classification Type (e.g. CPV)

Referenced document information in a PlannedProcurementPart and Lot

• OPT-110-Part-FiscalLegis: URL to Fiscal Legislation
• OPT-111-Part-FiscalLegis: Fiscal Legislation Document ID
• OPT-120-Part-EnvironLegis: URL to Environmental Legislation
• OPT-112-Part-EnvironLegis: Environmental Legislation Document ID
• OPT-130-Part-EmployLegis: URL to Employment Legislation
• OPT-113-Part-EmployLegis: Employment Legislation Document ID

Lot tendering terms (execution requirement)

• OPT-070-Lot: Reserved Execution justification
• OPT-071-Lot: Quality Target Code
• OPT-072-Lot: Quality Target Description

Assets in a Contract

• OPP-020-Contract: Assets related contract extension indicator
• OPP-021-Contract: Used asset
• OPP-022-Contract: Significance (%)
• OPP-023-Contract: Predominance (%)

Contract terms and other information of a Tender

• OPP-080-Tender: Kilometers Public Transport
• OPP-035-Tender: Revenues Allocation of tickets sales code
• OPP-032-Tender: Revenues Allocation
• OPP-030-Tender: Contract conditions Code
• OPP-031-Tender: Contract Conditions Description (other than revenue allocation)
• OPP-033-Tender: Penalties and Rewards Code
• OPP-034-Tender: Penalties and Rewards Description

Other

• OPP-040-Procedure: Main Nature - Sub Type

Potentially unmappable

In addition to the above, the following field also seems to be unmappable:

• BT-127-notice: Future Notice Note: Although the documentation of the epo:hasEstimatedContractNoticePublicationDate property states that it corresponds to BT-127, that property appears as an attribute of the epo:ProcessPlanningTerm class, whose instance, in turn, must be linked to an epo:Procedure instance. However, looking at the field's XPath, it appears that its value is to be linked to the (Planning) notice itself, not to a procedure declared by the notice. Does a PIN (always) have a Procedure?

[andreea-pasare]

The following IDs are mandatory in UBL but not required in eForms so there is no need to map them to ePO, either for Part or Lot:

• OPT-111-Part-FiscalLegis: Fiscal Legislation Document ID
• OPT-112-Part-EnvironLegis: Environmental Legislation Document ID
• OPT-113-Part-EmployLegis: Employment Legislation Document ID

For the fields OPT-110-Part-FiscalLegis: URL to Fiscal Legislation, OPT-120-Part-EnvironLegis: URL to Environmental Legislation, OPT-130-Part-EmployLegis: URL to Employment Legislation, in ePO v5.0.0 we implemented the following:

The above mentioned URL attributes apply to both the Part and the Lot.

[AchillesDougalis]

BT-26(m)-Part: Classification Type (e.g. CPV) and BT-26(a)-Part: Classification Type (e.g. CPV) do not need to be mapped to the Ontology, as these BTs use one single value: CPV.

It was decided that the rest of the fields (OPT-070-Lot, OPT-071-Lot, OPP-020-Contract, OPP-021-Contract, OPP-022-Contract, OPP-023-Contract, OPP-080-Tender, OPP-035-Tender, OPP-032-Tender, OPP-030-Tender, OPP-031-Tender, OPP-033-Tender, OPP-034-Tender) will not be mapped to ePO 5.0.0 as more research is required (tracked under https://github.com/OP-TED/ePO/issues/788) in order to create the associated ePO concepts.