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.

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

Expand tender.contractPeriod description #902

Closed
jpmckinney opened this issue Aug 1, 2019 · 3 comments
Closed

Expand tender.contractPeriod description #902

jpmckinney opened this issue Aug 1, 2019 · 3 comments
Labels
quick Semantics Relating to field and code descriptions
Milestone

Comments

@jpmckinney
Copy link
Member

jpmckinney commented Aug 1, 2019

The period over which the contract is estimated or required to be active. If the tender does not specify explicit dates, the duration field may be used.

The EU standard procurement forms use the construction "Duration of the contract, framework agreement or dynamic purchasing system", to avoid ambiguity around which contract this period refers to (as there can be many contracts over different periods, especially in the latter cases).

@jpmckinney jpmckinney added the Schema Relating to other changes in the JSON Schema (renamed fields, schema properties, etc.) label Aug 1, 2019
@jpmckinney jpmckinney added this to the 1.2.0 milestone Aug 1, 2019
@jpmckinney jpmckinney added Semantics Relating to field and code descriptions quick and removed Schema Relating to other changes in the JSON Schema (renamed fields, schema properties, etc.) labels Jul 17, 2020
@jpmckinney
Copy link
Member Author

jpmckinney commented Sep 17, 2020

@ColinMaudry Can you check if there are any other occurrences of "contract" that should similarly be substituted?

Also, in the PR, use "the contract, framework agreement or dynamic purchasing system" without repeating "the" (it's currently "the contract, the framework agreement or the dynamic purchasing system".

@JachymHercher
Copy link
Contributor

JachymHercher commented Nov 17, 2020

Based on #827 (comment), we probably do not need to expand definitions. (By contrast, we might want to look for opportunities to contract them remove unnecessary repetitions of the definitions.)

@jpmckinney
Copy link
Member Author

I don't think we have many occurrences of repetition, but this should be covered while doing #827. I'll close this issue in favor of your linked comment.

@jpmckinney jpmckinney moved this to Done in OCDS 1.2 Jul 2, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
quick Semantics Relating to field and code descriptions
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants