Lee Belbin

I don't agree with @ArthurChapman about this test being multi-record: It is definitely single record. Like any of the assertions, they can be accumulated across any set of multiple records...

Slight tweak of Expected Response applied: INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if no tests of type VALIDATION were run; REPORT the number of tests of output type VALIDATION that did not run because prerequisites...

From Zoom meeting 30th May 2022, change the Expected Response INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if no tests of type VALIDATION were run; REPORT the number of tests of output type VALIDATION that did...

Splitting bdqffdq:Information Elements into "Information Elements ActedUpon" and "Information Elements Consulted". **This MEASURE I am unsure about: I opted for "Consulted"** Also changed "Field" to "TestField", "Output Type" to "TestType"...

So, should this test be "VALIDATION_TAXON_NOTFOUND" to match #122, #77, #83, #22, #28, with Information elements dwc:scientificName and dwc:genus?

I agree @chicoreus - I would be much happier with VALIDATION_SCIENTIFICNAME_NOTFOUND to match the other VALIDATIONS. Regards #101 (and #46) - I am now wondering about the set of TAXON...

@ArthurChapman - I checked my Gainesville notes and I had nothing specific to this one or #45. Maybe related tests have changed leaving this orphaned?

Thanks Arthur! That makes a LOT more sense. Lee On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:40 AM Arthur Chapman wrote: > I have changed the wording of the notes to...

With the quorum of agreement (email response July 15, 2020), I have changed this test to match the higher taxonomic equivalents, e.g., #122 with the recognition that the utility of...

Changed "NOT COMPLIANT" to "NOT_COMPLIANT" in Example