Skip to content

Issues: OP-TED/ted-rdf-mapping

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

91 Open 197 Closed
91 Open 197 Closed
Author
Filter by author
Loading
Label
Filter by label
Loading
Use alt + click/return to exclude labels
or ⇧ + click/return for logical OR
Projects
Filter by project
Loading
Milestones
Filter by milestone
Loading
Assignee
Filter by who’s assigned
Sort
Sort by
Newest Oldest Most commented Least commented Recently updated Least recently updated Best match
Most reactions
👍 👎 😄 🎉 😕 ❤️ 🚀 👀

Issues list

Include mapping to property epo:isDesignContest in the conceptual mapping of form F13 type: feature request something requested to be implemented in a future release
#431 opened Jul 13, 2023 by csnyulas 2023-05-future
@csnyulas
epo:refersToLot relation should be used only on epo-not:ResultNotice instances type: bug Something implemented incorrectly in a release. type: feature request something requested to be implemented in a future release
#430 opened Jul 12, 2023 by csnyulas 2023-05-future
@csnyulas
1
Question about modelling section V.0.4: Contract/lot/concession/prize NOT awarded type: feature request something requested to be implemented in a future release type: implementation question something needs clarified, refined or decided before the implementation can continue
#424 opened Jun 9, 2023 by csnyulas 2023-05-future
@csnyulas @costezki
@muricna @valexande
F20: Don't create Tender instance if no information is attached to it type: feature request something requested to be implemented in a future release
#423 opened Jun 9, 2023 by csnyulas 2023-05-future
@csnyulas @costezki @valexande
Additional encoding of legal basis, in addition to epo:hasLegalBasis on Notice. type: implementation question something needs clarified, refined or decided before the implementation can continue
#422 opened Jun 9, 2023 by csnyulas 2023-05-future
@csnyulas @costezki @andreea-pasare
F20: Delete epo:refersToLot relation originating from the Notice instance type: bug Something implemented incorrectly in a release.
#415 opened Jun 7, 2023 by csnyulas 2023-05
@csnyulas @valexande
6
Harmonise the Conceptual Mapping type: feature request something requested to be implemented in a future release
#408 opened May 31, 2023 by valexande 2023-05-future
@valexande
rdf:PlainLiteral and rdfs:Literal relation type: feature request something requested to be implemented in a future release type: implementation question something needs clarified, refined or decided before the implementation can continue
#407 opened May 31, 2023 by valexande 2023-05-future
@csnyulas @valexande
4
Shall the Buyer also be linked to the Procedure?
#405 opened May 18, 2023 by costezki 2023-05-future
@csnyulas @valexande
V.3.2.3 Number of Tenders from other countries type: feature request something requested to be implemented in a future release
#402 opened May 3, 2023 by valexande
@csnyulas @valexande
Feedback F20 (issue 11, CM): VI.3 Consider adding Notice hasAdditionalInformation to EPO type: feature request something requested to be implemented in a future release
#400 opened May 3, 2023 by csnyulas
@costezki @muricna @andreea-pasare
4
Feedback F13, F20, F23 PIN (issue 9 from F23 PIN, TM): VI.4.3 The ontology does not foresee CompetitionNotice refersToLot so this mapping cannot work. type: implementation question something needs clarified, refined or decided before the implementation can continue
#396 opened May 2, 2023 by valexande 2023-05-future
@csnyulas @costezki @valexande
1
Feedback F23 PIN (issue 8, TM): II.2.7.2 and II.2.7.3 a time has been added to the Start and End date act: for closing it can be closed but an additional confirmation is needed type: implementation question something needs clarified, refined or decided before the implementation can continue type: missing feature something expected but missing from a release
#395 opened May 2, 2023 by valexande 2023-05-future
@muricna @valexande
4
Feedback F13, F20, F23 PIN (issue 5 from F23 PIN, TM): CompetitionNotice announcesProcedure instead of CompetitionNotice refersToProcedure type: implementation question something needs clarified, refined or decided before the implementation can continue
#392 opened May 2, 2023 by valexande 2023-05-future
@csnyulas @costezki
1
Feedback F23 PIN (issue 4, TM): II.2 whole section is wrongly mapped as it is mapped to refersToLot which is the case for the ResultNotice type: implementation question something needs clarified, refined or decided before the implementation can continue
#391 opened May 2, 2023 by valexande 2023-05-future
@costezki @valexande
5
Feedback F20 (issue 10, TM): V.2.2.6 ContractModificationNotice numberng and field is wrong type: implementation question something needs clarified, refined or decided before the implementation can continue
#371 opened May 2, 2023 by valexande 2023-05-future
@csnyulas @costezki @muricna
Feedback F20 (issue 8, CM): It is not clear why there is a mapping to non-awarded contract type: missing feature something expected but missing from a release
#369 opened May 2, 2023 by valexande 2023-05-future
@csnyulas @valexande
1
Feedback F13 (issue 7, CM): V.3.0.1 mentions Tenders at header level of the section type: bug Something implemented incorrectly in a release. type: feature request something requested to be implemented in a future release
#356 opened May 2, 2023 by valexande 2023-05-future
@csnyulas
3
Is the mapping of fields III.1.4.1 and III.1.9.2 correct? act: for closing it can be closed but an additional confirmation is needed type: implementation question something needs clarified, refined or decided before the implementation can continue
#344 opened Feb 16, 2023 by csnyulas
@csnyulas
2
How to map epo:hasRestatedEstimatedValue when LOT_NO on AWARD_CONTRACT is missing or does not match the LOT_NO values on the OBJECT_DESCR type: implementation question something needs clarified, refined or decided before the implementation can continue
#337 opened Feb 6, 2023 by csnyulas 2023-02-future
@muricna
How should we map fields I.3.3.1 (ADDRESS_FURTHER_INFO_IDEM) and I.3.4.2 (CONTRACTING_BODY/ADDRESS_PARTICIPATION_IDEM) when there are multiple Buyers type: feature request something requested to be implemented in a future release type: implementation question something needs clarified, refined or decided before the implementation can continue
#333 opened Jan 30, 2023 by csnyulas
@csnyulas @muricna
Update property names used on different types of notices (e.g. refersToRole vs. announcesRole, refersToProcedure vs. announcesProcedure etc), type: feature request something requested to be implemented in a future release
#326 opened Jan 25, 2023 by csnyulas 2023-02-future
@csnyulas @andreea-pasare
2
Award Criterion - Order of importance type: feature request something requested to be implemented in a future release type: implementation question something needs clarified, refined or decided before the implementation can continue
#325 opened Jan 24, 2023 by muricna
1
(Duplicate with #293) Change prefixes of notice types from epo: to epo-not: type: feature request something requested to be implemented in a future release
#322 opened Jan 24, 2023 by csnyulas 2023-02-future
@valexande
3
II.1.5.3 Why is there no mapping for this element or suggestion for future mapping type: feature request something requested to be implemented in a future release
#321 opened Jan 23, 2023 by muricna
@csnyulas
ProTip! Exclude everything labeled bug with -label:bug.