-
|
Why is it that the information on CVD is collected in OPTs (OPT-155 and OPT-156)? Why is the information not recorded via the BTs intended for this purpose (BT-715, BT-726 and BT-726)? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 1 comment 2 replies
-
|
The OPT fields were used to provide a more flexible implementation for CVD. This will be adapted in the 3rd amendment to make the SDK consistent with the annex. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@ferrakaop Thanks for the information. Does this mean that the OPTs will be included in the amendment ? Or will the information be recorded via the BTs in future? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
We would need to rename the OPT fields to BT-xxx and change the annex - or just revert the SDK to the original BTs in SDK to align with the annex. We still need to check the impact one way or another, though I think it's easier to keep the existing fields but rename them as BT-xxx, as there would be no change to the XML schema. There are some other OPP or OPT fields that needed to be created because the eForms regulation annex cannot cover all aspects needed by a data model - the "business" OPP/OPT fields will need to be reflected in the 3rd amendment to reduce the gap and confusion. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
We would need to rename the OPT fields to BT-xxx and change the annex - or just revert the SDK to the original BTs in SDK to align with the annex. We still need to check the impact one way or another, though I think it's easier to keep the existing fields but rename them as BT-xxx, as there would be no change to the XML schema.
There are some other OPP or OPT fields that needed to be created because the eForms regulation annex cannot cover all aspects needed by a data model - the "business" OPP/OPT fields will need to be reflected in the 3rd amendment to reduce the gap and confusion.