1- the query as such returns 0 observations.
2- a first check shows that it is because some predicates are not instantiated in repoF25
?Procedure epo:hasProcedureType ?ProcedureTypeCode .
?Contract epo:hasContractConclusionDate ?ContractConclusionDate . is also problematic
3- making them optional
the result is fast . Really working fine.
4- the problem I could see is that many info has been provided as an extension of ePO but may be also with slighly non conformant predicates: I could find Type that I assume is procedureType.
Then CPV and ContractNature have not been instantiated at all. when the information exists and was mapped.
costezki
commented
2 years ago
I have been testing the query https://github.com/OP-TED/epo-queries/blob/main/BDTI-queries/analysis-of-received-tender-lots.rq on the subset of TED data called repoF25. And I have the following observations:
1- the query as such returns 0 observations. 2- a first check shows that it is because some predicates are not instantiated in repoF25 ?Procedure epo:hasProcedureType ?ProcedureTypeCode . ?Contract epo:hasContractConclusionDate ?ContractConclusionDate . is also problematic
3- making them optional the result is fast . Really working fine. 4- the problem I could see is that many info has been provided as an extension of ePO but may be also with slighly non conformant predicates: I could find Type that I assume is procedureType. Then CPV and ContractNature have not been instantiated at all. when the information exists and was mapped.