Mapping of eForms fields `BT-808-Review` (Review Applicant Identifier) and `BT-807-Review` (Review Body Identifier)

[csnyulas]

In ePO 4.0.0 there is no relation between the epo:ReviewRequest and the epo:ReviewRequester, nor between epo:ReviewDecision and the epo:Reviewer.

This makes the mapping of the eForms fields BT-808-Review (Review Applicant Identifier) and BT-807-Review (Review Body Identifier) fields incomplete, since there can be multiple review request made by the same requester, and multiple requester referring to different requests (or "evolution" of requests).

Note that, according to the eForms team, the field BT-808-Review (Review Applicant Identifier) can also appear in ReviewDecissions.

[AchillesDougalis]

Hi, do the changes mentioned in ticket https://github.com/OP-TED/ted-rdf-mapping-eforms/issues/84 solve your problem?

[andreea-pasare]

Implementation for ePO 5.0.0:

As a side note, the BT-808-Review (Review Applicant Identifier) at the level of the Review Decision is now linked to the epo:ReviewRequester.

[csnyulas]

While looking at the linking of the various roles to the various notice types, we realized that the epo:Reviewer role is once instantiated in the Result or Completion notices, in the context of appeal process, from field BT-807-Review, but it can be instantiated also in the Competition and Planning phases (from the fields OPT-301-Lot-ReviewOrg and OPT-301-Part-ReviewOrg).

Are those really the same epo:Reviewer roles, from the business point of view, or would it be better to create two different roles for these two contexts?

@muricna @andreea-pasare @pdonohoe @AchillesDougalis please comment.