SV: Change requests to QualificationApplication (request and/or Response) into UBL-2.2

[Ole Ellerbæk Madsen <olema@digst.dk>]

Hi Christoph

 

I will forward your questions.

 

Best Regards

Ole

 

 

Fra: Christoph Karich [mailto:Christoph.Karich@msg.group]
Sendt: 16. marts 2017 22:54
Til: Ole Ellerbæk Madsen
Emne: AW: Change requests to QualificationApplication (request and/or Response) into UBL-2.2

 

Hi Ole,

 

long time no see.

 

I have 2 questions regarding the EU comments:

 

a)       Regarding No. 1 (substitue ContractFolderID by Procurmenet Project ID): it should be considered to use this consistently. Basicly for all the pre-award processes it would be “nicer” to use Procurement Project ID instead of Contract Foleder ID. But since semantics and syntax are mapped anyhow, the pre-award processes can live with ContractFolderID on the syntax level mapped to Project Reference Identifier on the semtantic level anyhow. See also Comment/proposed solution #12.

b)      Is there some elaboration on #13/#14 and its intended use (which document) and the source of the requirement?

 

Regards,

 

Christoph

 

--

Christoph Karich
Lead Business Consultant
GB O – Public Sector Business Consulting

msg systems ag
Wittestraße 30
13509 Berlin

Tel.: +49 89 96101 0
Mobil: +49 172 6868 134
E-Mail: christoph.karich@msg-systems.com

http://www.msg-systems.com

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Robert-Bürkle-Str. 1, D-85737 Ismaning/München
Vorstand: Hans Zehetmaier (Vorsitzender), Dr. Stephan Frohnhoff, Bernhard Lang, 
Roland Roudny, Jens Stäcker, Dr. Dirk Taubner
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Dr. Christian Hofer
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht München, HRB 140 149

 

Von: Ole Ellerbæk Madsen [mailto:olema@digst.dk]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. März 2017 17:17
An: ubl-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Betreff: [ubl-comment] Change requests to QualificationApplication (request and/or Response) into UBL-2.2

 

 

Comments from EU:

 

Followed by a question:

 

Wouldn’t it make sense having the evidences out the Response, at the root level? This way two or more responses could point at the one evidence that has been specified once (thus having more “generic” evidences).