-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
Metrics: Add relatedItem field #112
Comments
Can you give a specific example? It will make it easier to confirm that the semantics are the same as for other metrics. |
Lets say we have FA establishment where needed items know in advance. For example its fuel. CA knows that he will buy 1000l of E5 and 700l of B7. For E5 the period is jan-mar + nov-dec and for B7 - its apr-oct. So, we have two lots with different metrics. Same for items: if we will make this example more complex - let's assume CA wants E5 like cards and "for cash" - so we have items. And for these items again we can have different metrics on all three levels (tender/bid/award) |
What is the metric in the above example? I see two lots, each with one object in the |
Ah, ok. Let me make it more deep: yes you have two lots with overall volume defined for each. But on another hand you have a specific schedule of purchasing, given for each lot. Therefore we can divide a volume of each lot into deliverables (sub-volumes) according to the schedule. So under lot 1 we will have overall volume (1000l) but divided (by metrics) into two deliverables: 600l during Jan-mar and 400l during nov-dec. |
I understand now. So, the metrics extension shows a snippet of a contract implementation, with metrics. If you're using the lots extension, then:
So, that's how a metric is related to a lot. To relate a metric to an item, I guess we'd need a |
In practice, it's very often situation when different sets of metrics relate to different lots or even items. So some relation between metric and lot/item is really needed. Do you think its possible to add to extensions' schema the same stuff that we already have for requirements?
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: