search

italia / daf-ontologie-vocabolari-controllati

Elenco di ontologie e vocabolari controllati. Per maggiori informazioni, si veda il readme principale e quello di singoli vocabolari/ontologie, ove presente, e la seguente documentazione
https://github.com/italia/daf-ontologie-vocabolari-controllati/wiki
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
82 stars 51 forks source link

Open Contracting Data Standard (OCDS) and OntoPiA #169

Open mfortini opened 2 years ago

mfortini commented 2 years ago

The Open Contracting Data Standard (OCDS) is widely used. How does it compare with OntoPiA's current contract ontology?

https://standard.open-contracting.org/latest/en/#

giorgialodi commented 2 years ago

Ciao @mfortini, I think we need to clarify the scenario here both at the European and Italian level.

At the European level there is a reference ontology that is the eProcurement Ontology (ePO). The adoption of this ontology is not mandatory, but the ontology is aligned to eForms, which will be mandatory soon, and it is fully aligned with the new European Directives on eProcurement. In addition, this ontology will be considered as the basis for the construction of the first European data space; i.e., the eProcurement Data Space. Its importance is then quite evident and relevant. Currently, there is a open working group at the European level coordinated by the Publications Office for the development and maintenance of the ontology. Italy participates in this working group with me and ANAC. In addition, just last year another working group I participated in concluded a pilot activity named BDTI pilot. In the pilot some real data, from Italy (from Consip, ANAC), Portugal, and Norway, were transformed in linked open data (in RDF) according to the ePO ontology. On top of the resulting knowledge graph, some data analyses have been carried out. The pilot contributed to the revision of the ePO ontology based on real daa, and to understand the various challenges in terms of data quality. Within the pilot, a specific mapping between OCDS and ePO was created since Portugal publishes some of its data on procurement using OCDS. The mapping is not that easy since the modelling perspectives of the two specifications are different.

In OntoPiA, the PublicContract ontology mainly follows the Italian system for Procedures/Lots and Public Contracts from ANAC. It was developed with ANAC and Piedmont Region/CSI/Synapta and it is based on national regulations not fully aligned with the new European Directives on eProcurement mentioned above. However, a first attempt to align the ontology PublicContract of OntoPiA to the ePO ontology has been done and it can be found in the related alignment files. The current PublicContract ontology is not aligned to OCDS also because the RDF version of this latter was very old at the time of the development of PublicContract and no longer maintained. This in fact created some issues: if I do not know precisely the URIs of the concepts defined in OCDS, it is difficult to define semantic alignments with PublicContract which is OWL serialized in RDF.

In essence and to conclude, the reference ontology in Europe should be ePO and PublicContract is aligned to it, when possible. A mapping between OCDS and ePO has been created in the BDTI pilot mentioned above with some challenges to understand better. Therefore, it can be possible in the future to partially align PublicContract with OCDS too, provided that for OCDS a stable and up-to-date OWL/RDF resource is made available.

Hope this clarifies the overall scenario.

giorgialodi commented 1 year ago

@mfortini do you think we can close the issue? I was looking at the list and there are others that can be closed too :)

giorgialodi commented 4 months ago

@mfortini secondo te possiamo chiudere l'issue? Su questo tema ci sarebbe da lavorare con ANAC, nel caso.