BR-BT-00079-0026: why is this rule specifically defined for voluntary form E3?

[kletersteegp]

Why is these schematron there for the voluntary E3 form? Is there a reason why this rule applies specifically for an E3 form? Other forms dont have this rule. And i think voluntary forms in general should have less schematron rules and not an extra schematron rule.

entry key="rule|text|BR-BT-00079-0026">'The names and professional qualifications of the staff assigned to perform the contract must be given' (BT-79-Lot) is not allowed when: 'Main nature of the contract' (BT-23-Lot) is not 'Services' (in 'E3 – Voluntary contract notice')

[YvesJo]

Extended forms are less strict in term of existence (i.e. less mandatory information). There is a minimum of business logic that should however be shared amongst forms. The rule in question does not allow to require name and qualification of staff assigned when it is not about a service. There is no justification following which E3 should be an exception.

[kletersteegp]

But as far i can see there is no other form in SDK1.13 that has this rule. So E3 is the execption

[YvesJo]

That's right, this rule was only active for E3 in SDK 1.13. It should however get activated for other forms

[kletersteegp]

Moreover directive 24 states that is both applies to works and services

[kletersteegp]

We already saw that this rule will be introduced in SDK1.14 for the ohter forms. In SKD1.13 it is only for E3.
Moreover we think that the rule is not correct ans should also include works.

[YvesJo]

Great, we'll check this internally and fix it accordingly.

[YvesJo]

Works will be added.
KR

[YvesJo]

After review and internal discussion, we foresee to remove the CF rules (the case for E3 will get backported to SDK 1.13 once 1.14 released) and for form 17 to require the presence of BT-79 as soon as Works or Services are involved as main or additional contract nature.

[kletersteegp]

Ok. Thank you.