search

OP-TED / ted-rdf-mapping-eforms

TED-RDF Mapping Suites for eForms Notices
European Union Public License 1.2
1 stars 0 forks source link

cac:PlannedPeriod and cac:ContractExtension not found #67

Closed OceaneAbrard closed 1 month ago

OceaneAbrard commented 1 month ago

Issue: Problem with cac:PlannedPeriod and cac:ContractExtension metadata that are not mapped in a few notices of the SDKv1.7 only. The metadata is present in the xml notices, but not in the resulting ttl ones for the following references:

00126868-2024 (eFormSubType 20) missing cac:PlannedPeriod + cac:ContractExtension 00139066-2024 (eFormSubType 14) missing cac:PlannedPeriod 00143262-2024 (eFormSubType 21) missing cac:PlannedPeriod + cac:ContractExtension

For example, this is what is present in the xml of the 00126868-2024 notice (eFormSubType 20), which I can't find in the ttl.


        <cac:PlannedPeriod>
            <cbc:DurationMeasure unitCode="MONTH">**24**</cbc:DurationMeasure>
        </cac:PlannedPeriod>
        <cac:ContractExtension>
            <cbc:MaximumNumberNumeric>**1**</cbc:MaximumNumberNumeric>
            <cac:Renewal>
                <cac:Period>
                    <cbc:Description languageID="SPA">se prevé una prórroga de 12 meses</cbc:Description>
                </cac:Period>
            </cac:Renewal>
        </cac:ContractExtension>

(Issue posted upon Cristian's request)

schivmeister commented 1 month ago

The data elements you cite for the given example data file are at the following XPaths:

cac:PlannedPeriod

/ContractNotice/cac:ProcurementProject/cac:PlannedPeriod

cac:ContractExtension

/ContractNotice/cac:ProcurementProject/cac:ContractExtension

I was not able to find this in the eForms SDK fields.json or documented anywhere else.

csnyulas commented 1 month ago

Indeed, the only nodes that have cac:PlannedPeriod in their XPath are:

and the only node that has the cac:ContractExtension in its XPath is:

As you can see, in these nodes (and their children fields) the cac:ProcurementProject element should be placed under a cac:ProcurementProjectLot element, not directly under the root element, as it is the case in all the above notices. Apparently the notices you found are not well formed. I understood that there are more problems with the transformation of SDK v1.7 notices. Perhaps this is because in that SDK version the validators were not that advanced and were unable to catch many of the errors in the data.

csnyulas commented 1 month ago

Can we close this issue? Or do we want to turn it into an eForms SDK (validator) issue? Or are there other plans or solutions for dealing with wrong data?