Lee Belbin

I have updated the Expected Response as suggested above and the ISO Reference.

Again, I think the Expected Response may be clearer if your "INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if dwc:eventDate is EMPTY; AMENDED the value of dwc:eventDate if it was not a properly formatted ISO 8601-1...

In line with #26, altered Expected response from INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if dwc:eventDate is EMPTY; AMENDED the value of dwc:eventDate if it was unambiguous and formatted as a valid ISO 8601-1 date;...

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"

Changing INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if dwc:dateIdentified is EMPTY; COMPLIANT if the value of dwc:dateIdentified is a valid according to bdq:sourceAuthority; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT to INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if dwc:dateIdentified is EMPTY; COMPLIANT if dwc:dateIdentified contains...

I've edited the Expected Response according to @tucotuco suggestion: From INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if dwc:dateIdentified is EMPTY; COMPLIANT if dwc:dateIdentified contains a valid ISO 8601-1 date; otherwise NOT_COMPLIANT to INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET if dwc:dateIdentified...

I have updated the ISO Reference link

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"

Splitting bdqffdq:Information Elements into "Information Elements ActedUpon" and "Information Elements Consulted"

Just back on deck. Thanks @ianengelbrecht and @ArthurChapman. I agree that we should round these limits out to -430 to +8850, but I wonder then if this one is 'Parameterized'...