Lee Belbin

Post Zoom 11/7/2023, I have aligned the Source Authority with the suggested syntax: bdq:sourceAuthority default = "ISO 3166-1-alpha-2 country codes" {[https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#search]} to bdq:sourceAuthority default = "ISO 3166 Country Codes" {[https://www.iso.org/iso-3166-country-codes.html]}...

Splitting bdqffdq:Information Elements into "Information Elements ActedUpon" and "Information Elements Consulted". Also changed "Field" to "TestField" and "Output Type" to "TestType".

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

Thanks @chicoreus. I agree the GUID Applicability Statement is a fair base (Source Authority?), but what about the complexity of implementing #115?

That I would tend to agree with as we could easily add this special case. Comments from others?

In retrospect, if we are going to effectively treat EMPTY or an uninterpretable value as "present" then it is indeed an amendment. Sigh.

After reviewing all, I'd agree. Changed accordingly

Changed "AMENDED" to "FILLED_IN" in accordance with discussions April 16. I also moved the INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET test into the FILLED_IN part as this aligns with similar amendments.

Edited Example 2 as there is no "INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET". There was an error in the test data, now fixed. [dwc:occurrenceStatus="X": Response.status=NOT_AMENDED, Response.result="", Response.comment="dwc:occurrenceStatus is not EMPTY"]

Surely it doesn't matter if dwc:occurrenceStatus is EMPTY and dwc:individualCount or dwc:organismQuantity or dwc:organismQuantityType have values? dwc:occurrenceStatus will still be set to "present', which is correct.