Participants: Paloma Arillo Aranda, Paul Donohoe, Kenneth Bengtsson, Yves Jordan, Ole Madsen, Natalie Muric, Dragos Stoica
Summary
Paul presented a draft document comparing objects between eForms xml and the eProcurement ontology:
Funding:
Both eForms and the eprocurement ontoloy treat funding in a similar, the Fund is nested in the SettledContract where as in ePO the Fund is an external object. Both contain a text property allowing information specific to each contract.
Ranking:
In eForms the rank is associated to the Tender whereas in the eProcucrement ontology it is associated to the TenderAwardOutcome.
The difference would appear to be due to the fact as reported in the last minutes that the ontology is designed to allow the reusability of concepts across the procurement life cycle and the eForms have been created with the idea of creating snapshots in time.
It was noted that in UBL that the element cbc:Rank is used in two different contexts, for two different concepts:
a) In a design contest, the intention to award more than one Prize for the same Lot; each Prize is given a Rank value, and may have a different Prize Value
b) In a Result notice, where the Buyer has evaluated the submitted Tenders and given each a Rank value .
UBL encourages the re-use of existing elements in different contexts where it may be suitable to do so. The use in eForms is not restricted to the design contest and linking the rank to the winning tenderer is problematic since a tenderer may have submitted more than one tender or been a tendering party of several tenders.
Conclusion:
Paul and Yves will also compare the structure, content and use cases between eForms LotTender and the UBL TenderResult
------------------------------
Natalie MURIC
Publications Office of the European Union
------------------------------