Lee Belbin

I still greatly dislike the "etc" in the Expected Response. Related: I also don't like Information Elements that are missing from the Expected Response. We must to provide concise unambiguous...

Thanks @ArthurChapman. My eyes glaze over when it comes to names. I have enough understanding to be dangerous. I therefore defer to @ArthurChapman, @chicoreus, @tucotuco and hopefully a few more...

This would at least need to be in the Notes then?

In going through the data, there is an anomaly that is fixed if we accept the last suggested Expected Response from @chicoreus. I have just moved the "if dwc:taxonID is...

Is there consensus on the Expected Response?

Changed "AMENDED" to "FILLED_IN" in accordance with discussions April 16.

Splitting bdqffdq:Information Elements into "Information Elements ActedUpon" and "Information Elements Consulted". Also changed "Field" to "TestField" and "Output Type" to "TestType".

Would the following change to the Expected Response simplify and allow for evolution? INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if dwc:verbatimDepth is EMPTY or the value is not unambiguously interpretable; FILLED_IN the value of dwc:minimumDepthInMeters...

No comments on my suggested Expected Response? I think it will work with scenarios that have been mentioned. My only query would be if, for example dwc:verbatimDepth="100m", do we AMEND...

Thanks @tucotuco , hmm, yes. Why not. My Expected Response will still work I guess, so changing INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if dwc:minimumDepthInMeters and dwc:maximumDepthInMeters are EMPTY and either dwc:verbatimDepth is EMPTY or...