Problem with associations from Tender to Lot and LotGroup

[schivmeister]

In trying to map eForms field BT-13714-Tender there is a possible misalignment seen. Consider the following RDF extract of two epo:Tender instances:

pd:id_15377ca1-6cf7-4060-90f0-9290128957a3_Tender_TEN-0001 a epo:Tender;
  epo:foreseesSubcontracting epd:id_15377ca1-6cf7-4060-90f0-9290128957a3_SubcontractingEstimate_8tLJD9wyvjSHWYvDWGiX5D;
  epo:hasFinancialOfferValue epd:id_15377ca1-6cf7-4060-90f0-9290128957a3_MonetaryValue_JryEpNBTCzNfzKbsxaXwjt;
  epo:hasSubcontracting <http://publications.europa.eu/resource/authority/applicability/yes>;
  epo:isSubjectToGrouping epd:id_15377ca1-6cf7-4060-90f0-9290128957a3_LotGroup_GLO-0001;
  epo:isSubmitedBy epd:id_15377ca1-6cf7-4060-90f0-9290128957a3_Tenderer_TPA-0001;
  epo:isVariant true;
  epo:specifiesSubcontractors epd:id_15377ca1-6cf7-4060-90f0-9290128957a3_SubContractor_ORG-0010;
  adms:identifier epd:id_15377ca1-6cf7-4060-90f0-9290128957a3_TenderIdentifier_8tLJD9wyvjSHWYvDWGiX5D .

epd:id_15377ca1-6cf7-4060-90f0-9290128957a3_Tender_TEN-0002 a epo:Tender;
  epo:foreseesSubcontracting epd:id_15377ca1-6cf7-4060-90f0-9290128957a3_SubcontractingEstimate_nNq2rC7wBesmhA5baJ8mCt;
  epo:hasFinancialOfferValue epd:id_15377ca1-6cf7-4060-90f0-9290128957a3_MonetaryValue_JryEpNBTCzNfzKbsxaXwjt;
  epo:hasSubcontracting <http://publications.europa.eu/resource/authority/applicability/yes>;
  epo:isSubmitedBy epd:id_15377ca1-6cf7-4060-90f0-9290128957a3_Tenderer_TPA-0002;
  epo:isSubmittedForLot epd:id_15377ca1-6cf7-4060-90f0-9290128957a3_Lot_LOT-0001;
  epo:isVariant true;
  adms:identifier epd:id_15377ca1-6cf7-4060-90f0-9290128957a3_TenderIdentifier_nNq2rC7wBesmhA5baJ8mCt .

Observe that the first is linked to an epo:LotGroup via epo:isSubjectToGrouping, while the second to an epo:Lot via isSubmittedForLot. However, the latter property has cardinality 1, rendering the first instance non-conformant as it has no such relationship.

While it may seem as if use of epo:TenderGroup might be the way around this, notice that doing so would be semantically incorrect, as it does not share any properties with epo:Tender.

[AchillesDougalis]

The diagrams below show the difference in implementation between eForms and the Ontology. To be discussed for alignment