Lee Belbin

Yep. Done. That was a typo

@ArthurChapman - I think your logic is reverse? Don't we need AMENDED the value of dwc:eventDate from values in dwc:year, dwc:startDayOfYear and dwc:endDayOfYear if the value of dwc:startDayOfYear is less...

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

If you had ok values for dwc:year and dwc:startDayOfyear (cognisant of the Notes), the Expected Response would be INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET. Is this correct?

Added to Notes "This test is only for cases that fall within the one year (as given in dwc:year) and hence "dwc:startDayOfYear will always be less than dwc:endDayOfYear". [or do...

Splitting bdqffdq:Information Elements into "Information Elements ActedUpon" and "Information Elements Consulted". Also changed "Field" to "TestField", "Output Type" to "TestType" and updated "Specification Last Updated"

Thanks @chicoreus and @ArthurChapman. I like Arthur's idea. What we have not formalized is the type of ASSERTIONs. I'm presuming we have the equivalent of one of for VALIDATION: COMPLIANT...

Thanks @chicoreus. The way I visualize the results of running the tests (in my usual simple way), is (currently) 94 additional values for each record that take an atomised form...

While there are a scary range of scenarios, which @tucotuco, @chicoreus etc present, the key issue here for now at least is the word "unambiguous" in the definition of the...

Thanks @chicoreus. What are the implications for us? Does this only apply to code for rules for our TIME AMENDMENTS?