Skip to content
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

Jump to bottom

Is the mapping of fields III.1.4.1 and III.1.9.2 correct? #344

Open
csnyulas opened this issue Feb 16, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

Is the mapping of fields III.1.4.1 and III.1.9.2 correct? #344

csnyulas opened this issue Feb 16, 2023 · 2 comments
Assignees
@csnyulas
Labels
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

Comments

@csnyulas
Copy link
Contributor

Currently both field III.1.4.1 (Xpath LEFTI/RULES_CRITERIA) and III.1.9.2 (XPath LEFTI/QUALIFICATION/METHODS) are mapped to the cccev:description property value of a epo:SelectionCriterion instance that is connected tot a epo:Lot instance through the epo:specifiesSelectionCriterion property. See below screenshot.
BTW, this was also the case for field III.2.1.2 (XPath LEFTI/REFERENCE_TO_LAW), but that has been addressed by modifying EPO to allow for the encoding of procedure level "summary" criteria.

image
@csnyulas csnyulas added type: implementation question something needs clarified, refined or decided before the implementation can continue type: implementation question labels Feb 16, 2023
@csnyulas csnyulas self-assigned this Feb 16, 2023
@csnyulas
Copy link
Contributor Author

This issue is covered by #297 and #311 (but it puts them in perspective). Can be closed when the related issues are closed (or marked as addressed).

csnyulas added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 16, 2023
@csnyulas
Sample generated output for showing fix for issues #297, #298, #311, #…
7155cb1 
…315, #316 and #344 (and initial attempt to fixing #103).
@csnyulas csnyulas added act: for closing it can be closed but an additional confirmation is needed and removed type: implementation question something needs clarified, refined or decided before the implementation can continue labels Feb 16, 2023
@csnyulas
Copy link
Contributor Author

Marking this as addressed, as the temporary solution, for EPO 3.1.0, was implemented both in CM and TM (i.e. no mapping is being done until new version of EPO does not provide appropriate model for these fields)as part of addressing #297 and #311. For more, see comments and referenced commits (both here and in the related issues).

@costezki costezki added type: implementation question something needs clarified, refined or decided before the implementation can continue and removed type: implementation question labels Feb 18, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@csnyulas csnyulas

Labels
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
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@csnyulas @costezki