Lee Belbin

Are all happy with the specifications on this one now?

Getting this 'on the record' for all to consider: Email with @chicoreus yesterday. I suggested for the Expected Response- INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if dwc:scientificName is EMPTY, or all of dwc:genericName, dwc:specificEpithet and...

After discussion on the Zoom today, we agreed that using the current Test Data format for examples would seem expedient. We also previously agreed that a "COMPLIANT" and "NOT_COMPLIANT" or...

In the light of recent comments, changed the Expected Response to INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if dwc:decimalLatitude is EMPTY or the value is not interpretable as a number; COMPLIANT if the value of...

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"

If setting up a definition of EMPTY will consolidate intent, so be it. I am happy to work through the tests and change the Expected response wording. But how best...

Thanks @tucotuco. I like the definition but where do we put it so that it is at least as referenceable as the tests and comments?

Thanks @ArthurChapman. Duh, I forgot about that :|. Will do it now.

I like @tucotuco 's :) as I can easily understand it, and added it to #111 and the vocab #152. Lets see what @chicoreus says. I'm sure he will find...

@chicoreus: I'm presuming you are suggesting the removal of all phrases like "dwc:xxx is not present"? It does in retrospect seem odd that we have defined EMPTY but not PRESENT.