What's the need for "student" in "changes-proposal"?

[j-be]

I can't seem to figure out what to use this field for. I see it is optional, yet I still fail to see its use-case.

Commit message on 0e93014 doesn't give much context on why this was added either.

As far as I got it, EWP is defined as "sending institution is single point of truth, receiving should at most cache the data, but be aware, that everything may change at any point in time". So notifying about changes is kind-of out of scope, right? And if so, wouldn't the CNR APi be the place for that?

Outside the ListOf_Components there is already a (what I guess is) current version of the student's personal data, so any field present here would contain the same value as in the other section, i.e. in regards to above: just duplicate data.

And finally: its not like receiving HEI could do anything else than approve changes in a student's personal data, right? I mean, the data changed, it is not going to be reverted. E.g. something like a name-change is nothing receiving HEI has a say in, if even sending HEI can't do anything but acknowledge.

[kamil-olszewski-uw]

Each major change of LA requires signatures from three parties. In the new edition of the Erasmus programme, some of the student's personal data are also considered a major change and thus changing these requires a new version of LA and new signatures. These are the EC requirements that we must meet.

[j-be]

I can't seem to find the EC requirements you mention. Are they available to the public? I can't see this being required by the guidelines at https://wiki.uni-foundation.eu/display/EWP/New+LA+template as (as I understand it) it does not seem to mention changes to personal data at all.

Regardless of that, in my mind, that only means, that

<xs:complexType name="LearningAgreement">
  <xs:element name="student" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1">

should contain the student data, which has been last approved by all parties, rather than an up-to-date version of it. Else, there is no way to find out the version, which has last been approved by all parties. And since "thus changing these requires a new version of LA and new signatures" that is to be considered the valid version, right?

Example (maybe far fetched, but showing the problem):

1. I file an LA to go Erasmus, my name is Juri Berlanda

• LearningAgreement.student now contains "Juri Berlanda"

2. Everybody sings the LA

• LearningAgreement.student still contains "Juri Berlanda", and because first-version now is present, we can deduct, that everybody has approved that I go by the name "Juri Berlanda"

3. At some point (it doesn't really seem to matter when) I decide to legally change my gender (which is not even considered an "important change"?) and with that, I legally go by the name "Julia Berlanda" from now on, including Passport, drivers license, and so on.

• Does LearningAgreement.student now contain "Juri Berlanda" (the last approved version), or "Julia Berlanda" (the version stated in my Passport)?
• Does that mean, that the receiving HEI needs to approve a new version of my LA for it to be in power?

[j-be]

Further strolling around, it actually really seem to be that way - I think though this is not made obvious by the current documentation at all.

I.e. in https://github.com/erasmus-without-paper/ewp-specs-api-omobility-las/blob/new-la-template/examples/get-response-example.xml it is stated, that la.student.family-name is Sidorov, but la.changes-proposal.student.familiy-name is Karamazov.

So, I deduct, that the student went by the name of Ivan Petrovich Sidorov at the time he filed the receiving HEI first approved the document, and is now called Ivan Petrovich Karamazov, but the receiving HEI has not yet "approved" of that?

If that is really the way these values are meant to be used, I think it really needs to be made clear, that la.student is the student's data last approved by receiving HEI, or current proposal if no version has yet been approved by receiving HEI (as it is minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1", so it needs to be present).

Can you confirm?

EDIT: I think in that case it should also be made clear, that the student's personal data, which is currently considered "correct" (i.e. resembling his/her personal documents like Passport) is a superposition of the two.
EDIT: Updated above due to 97ebc56