TED-RDF Mapping Suites for eForms Notices

This repository provides mappings between eForms SDK representation and eProcurement Ontology representation of eForms Notices.

The artefacts provided in this repository are used by the TED-SWS system. They are provided in the mappings folder and are organised in packages called Mapping Suites.

This project is under development. The current scope of this project includes the mapping of:

• all Competition Notices (CNs), including eForms subtypes 10-24 according to eForms SDK versions 1.3 to 1.10
• Contract Award Notices (CANs) of eForms subtype 29 according to eForms SDK versions 1.3 to 1.10, excluding the information encoded in privacy fields (represented by BT IDs BT-195, BT-196, BT-197 and BT-198), and those that are masked by such privacy fields

The official documentation of this project is available here and will be integrated into the TED Semantic Web Service Project Documentation.

Requirements

Users need only to install the following external software tools, libraries and/or runtimes if developing and testing the RML mapping:

• Java 11+ (tested up to 17)
• RMLMapper-Java==v6.2.2

RMLMapper is currently tied to v6.2.2 because of an issue with conditional instantiation (currently fixed but yet unreleased).

RDF URI Scheme

The eForms RML mappings use the URI scheme {ns}id_{notice-id}_{concept}_{trailer}, where:

• {ns} is a base namespace, in this case http://data.europa.eu/a4g/resource/
• {concept} is either (i) an ontology fragment label or (ii) source element label, with a suffix or prefix
• {trailer} is either (i) an ID value (if the resource has one) or (ii) an online computed, deterministic hash
• Root concepts such as epo:Notice end up to only the {concept}

Expanding on some of the components for further clarity:

• Whether a concept is an ontology fragment or source element label, and whether this label has a suffix (rarely) or prefix, depends on the subjective (human) evaluation of whether only having the class name is sufficient hint of what the URI represents.
• The trailer, when a hash, is computed (seeded) with the XPath named element (e.g. cbc:ID) or (often relative) path (e.g. path(cbc:ID)) of what is being mapped, and therefore lends a unique identity to the URI. This yields reproducible URIs across RML TripleMaps, in case a resource needed to be instantiated at different XPaths, for whatever purpose.
  • A Lot or any other resource with an inherent ID, would simply have its cbc:ID value as the trailer, for e.g. epd:id_14549263-b47b-4e59-96a1-2d0d13e19343_Lot_LOT-0001, which is very useful for linking purposes at orthogonal XPaths (e.g. wherever an id-ref is concerned, that ID could simply be used to produce a linkable URI without having to navigate XPaths).
  • Any other resource where there is no inherent ID would have a hash that is unique to the XPath it represents, e.g. an epo:Purpose instance, if instantiated at different XPaths for associating different attributes, would have the same URI across those instantiations, resulting in one unique instance and no duplication due to multiple mappings.
    • The adms:Identifier, although having an ID, may still get a hash instead of ID in its trailer, as it may not have a short ID that is sensible to use/read (however we may not have enforced this rule strongly)

Note: Wherever URI is mentioned, IRI is meant. Also, the generation of hashes is done online against a remote HTTP web API endpoint offering this function, during transformation (which can otherwise be an offline process).

RML Files Organization

The structure of the RML files (we call them modules because they are modular files with RML rules that work together when combined) is based on the primary/root class of a set of mapping rules, which are part of one or more Mapping Groups (MGs) that share such a root class (the final segment of an MG name). An MG represents a logical grouping of related instances/resources (like a foaf:Person with all of its properties and relationships together with the instances of those relationships), in the form:

MG-{EndingClass}-{IntermediatePropertyAndClassPath}-{RootClass}

The class and property names in this case are separated by hyphens and do not include prefixes. For example, to represent that a Company has a Location which in turn has an Address:

MG-Address-hasAddress-Location-hasLocation-Company

In a technical mapping, the node will also be represented:

tedm:MG-Address-hasAddress-Location-hasLocation_ND-Company

This is because information for the same RDF resource can be in different locations in the source XML.

Known Issues

• owl:sameAs used to get through to the Organization of a TouchPoint for an epo:AgentInRole's "contact point in role" due to technical difficulty #30

• Expected epo:hasTimePeriod --> [1..*] at-voc:timeperiod , but found 0 instances predicate is an alternative and should not be mandatory OP-TED/ePO#529

• model declares a xsd:dateTime data type misalignment between eForms and ePO #8

• epo:Tender epo:isSubjectToGrouping epo:LotGroup will not have epo:isSubmittedForLot epo:Lot at the same time OP-TED/ePO#683

• External resources such as a referenced notices will raise violations if tested standalone (as they will only contain information in the current notice's scope)

• all epo-not:CompetitionNotice and associations of it will not exist for epo:ResultNotice

• all alternative values will not exist for all notices (e.g. used vs. n-used)

• epo:hasAwardDecisionDate data type misalignment between eForms and ePO #8

• epo:hasOJSIssueNumber data type misalignment between eForms and ePO

• Expected epo:hasAwardCriteriaStatedInProcurementDocuments OP-TED/ePO#679

• Expected epo:isSubjectToProcedureSpecificTerm --> [1..*] epo:ProcedureSpecificTerm , but found 0 instances No Procedure defined in a ResultNotice (it is defined fully in another notice)

• Expected epo:hasOfficialLanguage --> [1..*] at-voc:language , but found 0 instances Subtypes of Document do not necessarily have languages in the data

Contributing

You are more than welcome to help expand and mature this project.

When contributing to this repository, please first discuss the change you wish to make via issue, email, or any other method with the owners of this repository before making a change.

Please note that we adhere to a Code of Conduct, please follow it in all your interactions with the project.

Issue labels

The issues are classified on two dimensions:

• type label
  • bug - something implemented incorrectly in a release
  • missing feature - something expected but missing from a release
  • feature request - something requested to be implemented in a future release
  • implementation question - something needs clarified, refined or decided before the implementation can continue
  • release question - something needs clarified before a release is considered accepted
• action label
  • for implementation - it can be implemented and closed, everything has been clarified
  • for closing - it can be closed but an additional confirmation is needed

Licence

The content of this repository is licenced under EUPL v1.2 licence.