We got the following invalid SPARQL validation reports for the fields BT-795-Review (Review Request Fee), BT-796-Review (Review Request Withdrawn), BT-797-Review (Review Request Withdrawn Date), and BT-798-Review (Review Request Withdrawn Reasons) after transforming the SDK example file can_24_maximal.xml:
This is likely a mistake in the test notice, so we created the issue OP-TED/eForms-SDK#1187 to have it confirmed. If it turns out that the SDK example notice is correct, and these fields can appear not only on the epo:ReviewRequest class but also on epo:ReviewDecision, we will open a GitHub issue on the ePO repository to make the necessary adjustment in ePO.
We got the following invalid SPARQL validation reports for the fields
BT-795-Review(Review Request Fee),BT-796-Review(Review Request Withdrawn),BT-797-Review(Review Request Withdrawn Date), andBT-798-Review(Review Request Withdrawn Reasons) after transforming the SDK example filecan_24_maximal.xml:This is likely a mistake in the test notice, so we created the issue OP-TED/eForms-SDK#1187 to have it confirmed. If it turns out that the SDK example notice is correct, and these fields can appear not only on the
epo:ReviewRequestclass but also onepo:ReviewDecision, we will open a GitHub issue on the ePO repository to make the necessary adjustment in ePO.