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

Deal with old CPVs #110

Open
georgiana-b opened this issue Jun 8, 2019 · 4 comments
Open

Deal with old CPVs #110

georgiana-b opened this issue Jun 8, 2019 · 4 comments

Comments

@georgiana-b
Copy link
Member

We are starting to get old cpvs (from the 2003 CPV standard) in Opentender data. Currently these are causing an error in Elvis because we don't have any way to deal with them.

The solution we proposed so far was to create a new field for cpvs called standardCPV and match on that. For 2008 on tenders the standardCPV would be equal to their normal CPV.
For earlier tender the standardCPV would be their corresponding new CPV according to the correspondence table.

@georgiana-b
Copy link
Member Author

@zufanka The issue with the solution above is that, as you will see in the correspondence table there is no 1-1 mapping between the 2007 and the 2003 cpvs.

The 2007 cpvs are more discrete and therefore some 2003 cpvs have 2 or more new cpvs corresponding to them. For example:

2003 cpv 2003 cpv name 2007 cpv 2007 cpv name
23100000-8 Refined petroleum products. 09100000-0 Fuels.
    09210000-4 Lubricating preparations.
    09220000-7 Petroleum jelly, waxes and special spirits.

From a technical pov the right way would be to make this new standardCPV colum an array containing all the corresponding new cpvs. After all, there is no easy way to know which of the new cpvs is the right one for the tender. To continue with the example above it would mean a tender with the 2003 Refined petroleum products cpv would appear in the results for all the 2007 cpvs (Fuels, Lubricating preparations, Petroleum jelly, waxes and special spirits). This could lead to awkward situations where a user that selects Fuels gets results for petrolium jelly as well.

Having it as an array would also make things even more complicated and most importantly slow.
If you have any other idea of how to handle this please bring it forward.

@zufanka
Copy link
Member

zufanka commented Jun 8, 2019

@georgiana-b : I think it's ok to just take the most general one, in this case '09100000'. We have no way of knowing which more specific one to use anyway and as you pointed out, another solution would be awkward.

@georgiana-b
Copy link
Member Author

@zufanka I like the idea but unfortunately it's not applicable to all the cpvs.
The one I presented was just a fortunate example but some correspondence looks like this:

2003 cpv 2003 cpv name 2007 cpv 2007 cpv name
23110000-1 Light and medium oils and derivate products. 09130000-9 Petroleum and distillates.
    09210000-4 Lubricating preparations.
    09220000-7 Petroleum jelly, waxes and special spirits.

@zufanka
Copy link
Member

zufanka commented Jun 10, 2019

@georgiana-b I see! I guess then we put them under the highest level CPV of what they have in common, in this case it's the CPV 09000000 - Petroleum products, fuel, electricity and other sources of energy.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants