Lee Belbin

Can we seeks agreement and direction on the previous comment please? We may need to edit the vocabulary entry for INTERNAL_PREREQUISITES_NOT_MET

To align with the response from other notifications, suggest changing to TG2-NOTIFICATION_ANNOTATION_NOTEMPTY

First up, all the tests/assertions are at the record-level. You simply accumulate record-level responses for any dataset. Regarding annotations, see https://github.com/tdwg/bdq/issues/142 and https://github.com/tdwg/bdq/issues/149 but we do have a problem right...

Thanks @ArthurChapman

I've started to look at testdata for this NOTIFICATION and have made some changes/assumptions. I changed LABEL "PRESENT" to match title of test ("NOTEMPTY") and wonder about 1. The validity...

After zoom meeting, changed POTENTIAL_ISSUE if annotations are not EMPTY; otherwise NO_ISSUE to POTENTIAL_ISSUE if annotations are not EMPTY; otherwise NOT_ISSUE

Are we really meaning "bdq:annotation" here? It obviously isn't "dwc:annotation" :). @ArthurChapman and I are wondering why we would not have some Notes about this. I certainly understand the intent:...

Let's discuss this on the next zoom (it has NEEDS WORK tag). My 5c worth is that we need to leave this test as CORE to encourage (prod?) Darwin Core...

So what do we do? Expected response? Notes? Vocab? POTENTIAL_ISSUE if an oa:annotation is not EMPTY; otherwise NOT_ISSUE ?

I like @ArthurChapman 's reasoning and suggestions. We would need to add dwciri reference/link and a concise Note on why we are doing this, and how we would at least...