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

Link eCertis and ESPD #251

Open
ec-mcs opened this issue Jul 1, 2019 · 4 comments
Open

Link eCertis and ESPD #251

ec-mcs opened this issue Jul 1, 2019 · 4 comments
Labels
3rd party Pending for 3rd party information or decision eCERTIS

Comments

@ec-mcs
Copy link
Collaborator

ec-mcs commented Jul 1, 2019

The ESPD EDM is complex. What about the idea to link entries from eCertis to the ESPD.
An example would be legislation. This information is available in ESPD and eCertis. Instead of having a copy in the ESPD, how about that the legislation could be linked to eCertis. If the information does not exist in eCertis than this information can be provided in the ESPD directly.
The general idea is see if we can make the ESPD EDM simpler by linking information to eCertis.

Maybe for Legislation the cbc:id could be used for the eCertis ID.
Capture

@JosePRevenga
Copy link
Collaborator

It is a very good idea, but it must be implemented on v3.0.0. Given the fact that as per today e-Certis is evolving and the ELI model is being proposed to replace the element cac:Legislation, this idea of replacing the whole set of data related to this legislation inside the Criterion with "controlled" identifiers (e.g. the ELI identifier) is even better.

@JosePRevenga JosePRevenga added the V3.0.0 A solution for the issue is to be provided in version 3 label Sep 27, 2019
@SellittoGiampaolo
Copy link

That would be optimal, not only for legislation.
It would be a great thing if one could make an espd request from eCertis, to have a uniform behavior both crossborder and inside the MS

@mfontsan mfontsan added TBD Needs analysis and discussion with the requester and the rest of stakeholders and removed V3.0.0 A solution for the issue is to be provided in version 3 labels Sep 29, 2020
@psotofer
Copy link
Collaborator

psotofer commented Oct 5, 2021

Greetings,
We are currently studying a more close alignment between ESPD and eCertis and will be updating any further detail in this issue.

@hricolor
Copy link
Collaborator

hricolor commented Oct 8, 2021

Greetings,

As discussed during the Open User Community Meeting of 7th October, here is the relevant information presented yesterday regarding the link between ESPD, ESPD Services and eCertis.

This first image shows the goal and parties implied in this new proposal:
2021-11-05 09_40_03-ESPD_OUC_Meetings_20211007_eCertis_Discussion1

The second picture depicts the transaction between parties involved and the information exchanged:
2021-11-05 09_40_44-ESPD_OUC_Meetings_20211007_eCertis_Discussion_2

This third image shows how the current eCertis page is displayed:
2021-11-05 09_41_16-ESPD_OUC_Meetings_20211007_eCertis_Discussion3

This fourth image shows the new functionality developed by eCertis about non-mandatory/non-applicable criteria:
2021-11-05 09_41_56-ESPD_OUC_Meetings_20211007_eCertis_Discussion4

This fifth picture screenshot shows which data would be provided by eCertis taking the ESPD XML instances as reference:
2021-11-05 09_42_32-ESPD_OUC_Meetings_20211007_eCertis_Discussion5

And this last image shows the change that ESPD-EDM should include into the schema to be aligned with the proposal:
2021-11-05 09_43_08-ESPD_OUC_Meetings_20211007_eCertis_Discussion6

Please check the proposal and do not hesitate to provide any question, insight or improvement to the proposal.

@acolomer acolomer added the 3rd party Pending for 3rd party information or decision label Oct 17, 2022
@arillpa arillpa removed the TBD Needs analysis and discussion with the requester and the rest of stakeholders label Apr 8, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
3rd party Pending for 3rd party information or decision eCERTIS
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants