Lee Belbin

I commented in @chicoreus email of September 1. We do need to standardize the phrasing.

Sounds good to me. I've edited the ER as issues to discuss/fix are building.

@ArthurChapman: I think this IS parameterised as it requires a default **value** for dwc:geodeticDatum? The Parameter isn't EPSG as a sourceAuthority, but which EPSG code is the default? The Example...

In line with recent discussions, there is ONE dq:sourceAuthority for the GDs, epsg.io, therefore that isn't a Parameter. In this case, why are we even including "specified source authority" other...

I disagree @ArthurChapman. When running the test, you don't need to look up anything at epsg.io. The Parameter is a specific GD!

I am going to edit expected response, parameter, example and notes so please check.

Thanks @ArthurChapman. It isn't a 'parameterized EPSG value" or a "parameterized datum". I think it is a parameter which takes an EPSG code/value. I'd prefer **Expected response:** INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if the...

Also...I don't think we need to use "the field...." more simply, for example, "dwc:..."

I like @chicoreus's comment. I like simple. @ArthurChapman: All the suggested Parameter is implying is that if it isn't set, use EPSG:4326. I've edited the Specifications accordingly.

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