Role-ContactPoint props, discrepancy between ontology and conceputual model

[VladimirAlexiev]

• The conceptual model https://eprocurementontology.github.io/v2.0.2/index.html?goto=1:43 shows Role->has->ContactPoint

• The ontology release 2.0.1 shows two props whose names don't make much sense:

  epo:hasContactPersonRole
      rdfs:domain    epo:ContactPoint ;
      rdfs:range     epo:Role ;
      owl:inverseOf  epo:isPersonOfContact .

• ContactPoint has no relation to Person and indeed there may be nothing personal in the contact details

• What is "PersonOfContact"? That's not at all the same as "ContactPerson"

Such confusions would be avoided if the simple prop naming convention (mirroring fo the range) is adopted:

• Role->contactPoint->ContactPoint
• ContactPoint->role->Role

[eprocurementontology]

Your concern is justified and will be taken into consideration in the reification as per github issue 306. Specific attention will need to be paid to the relationships between Channel and ContactPoint

[andreea-pasare]

In the latest ePO version 3.0.1, we are using the relation hasContactPointInRole between AgentInRole and ContactPoint, as depicted in the following diagram:

Also, in the RDF files of ePO version 3.0.1 we are using the same name for this property: https://github.com/OP-TED/ePO/blob/v3.0.1/implementation/ePO/ under owl_ontology and shacl_shapes folders.

[VladimirAlexiev]

This makes sense!

But what are the other relations of AgentInRole? I guess they are omitted from the diagram, but exist in the overall model?

[andreea-pasare]

Yes, you can see below the "role relations" diagram from our development branch:

Note: In ePO version 3.0.1 we had epo:PrimaryRole and epo:SecondaryRole as subclasses for epo:AgentInRole. For the future release it is proposed to have as subclasses for epo:AgentInRole the following: epo:OfferingParty, epo:AquiringParty and epo:AuxiliaryParty.

[VladimirAlexiev]

thanks @andreea-pasare , now all makes sense!