Proposals for Design - List of topics and list of experts

[paulakeen]

We would like to discuss with a subgroup of technical experts a series of design and implementation topics on which we'd like to reach a common agreement:

TOPIC 1. "n-ary" relationships, examples:

• Joint procurement
• Consortia
• Subcontractors
• Why rov:Organization instead of ubl:Party?

TOPIC 2. "Are documents entities of the ontology? and if yes how should they be approached/treated

• Procurement documents (CA perspective):

Call for Competition (Call for Tenders; Call for Proposals and Invitation to Tender; Technical Specifications) Notices (PIN, CN, CAN)

• Other documents (EO perspective):

Expression of Interest Tender

• Scenarios:

Scenario 1: Documents as classes aggregating/consolidating data coming from external datasets Scenario 2: Documents as references to objects kept with a different ontology, e.g. IFLA LRM, UBL DocumentReference, other. This would include the treatment of narrative documents. ** Scenario 3: both, scenarios 1 and 2

TOPIC 3. Codes:

• Proposals: Use of SKOS-XL-AP Use the attributes by ISO15000-5 ebXML CCTS for Code Type

TOPIC 4. Identifiers:

• Proposals:

Use of multiple identifiers for organisations, e.g. Economic Operator, Buyer and Service Provider Use of the attributes by ISO15000-5 ebXML CCTS for Identifier Type

TOPIC 5. Use of SHACL:

Why? What for?

LIST OF RECOMMENDED EXPERTS:

1. Cécile Guasch (Freelance, working for the European Commission, ISA2)
2. Tim Davies (OCDS)
3. Colin Maudry (https://twitter.com/CMaudry) (OCDS)
4. J.F. Muñoz, G. Esteban, M.A. Bernal and/or F.J. Serón (University of Zaragoza)
5. Ansgar Mondorf (University of Koblenz, or someone proposed by him)
6. Any other one from the WG interested in participating

#

[paulakeen]

Dear OP,

As soon as you review the list of topics and experts we would propose a calendar of meetings and will invite the experts to participate.

[muricna]

We should not invite particular experts we have to leave it open to everyone. We need to have a quick discussion on each point before having such meetingq. For the time being we can say in the WG meeting that there will be technical meetings and agree on a weekly time for this we could give examples of subjects

[paulakeen]

Dear Natalie,

If we do not invite particularly interesting tech-guys no one except Tim and possibly Óscar will attend. Is that what we want or do we want to have knowledgeable contributors?

[muricna]

We announce in general and then remind these people separately

[paulakeen]

OK

[paulakeen]

Shall we prepare a slide with the content of the topics for the WGM? I'd say yes.

[muricna]

Lets discuss tomorrow morning

[sembu-eproc]

Can this issue be closed?

[muricna]

Where are we with organising the techncial meetings

[paulakeen]

For the first meeting, on Wednesday the 18th. April, we propose the following agenda:

1. Procuring entity(ties) and Buyer(s): how they relate depending on the procurement procedure, including joint procurements;
2. Economic operator(s): how they relate amongst themselves depending on the procurement procedures, including subcontractor(s) and groups of economic operators (e.g., consortia).

Objectives:

1. To come up with a consistent pattern for both (Procuring Entities and Economic Operators).
2. To come up with a coherent design for the n-ary relationships.

[muricna]

It was discussed last week in the bi-weekly meeting that at the beginning these meetings we would address the conceptual data model and if there was enough time we would address the other technical questions. Therefore I suggest the following Agenda:

1. Backbone of the conceptual data model
2. Procuring entity(ties) and Buyer(s): how they relate depending on the procurement procedure, including joint procurements;
3. Economic operator(s): how they relate amongst themselves depending on the procurement procedures, including subcontractor(s) and groups of economic operators (e.g., consortia). Though I am not sure that we will be able to deal with points 2 and 3. Hopefully we can deal at least with point 2.

[paulakeen]

So, finally, shall we expect to discuss these with the WG tech-guys or just internally as we are doing right now?

[muricna]

Once we have a couple we are happy with we will start inviting others