Post a comment on the text below

Previous comments

• SE - Sweden (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 02 May 2019 11:00:17

  Names of features (e.g. surface water body, ground water bodies, monitoring sites)  in national language	SE: Yes. Names in  English should not be a requirement.
  Quality checks to be added
  To introduce also checks in the Access database	SE does not use the Access tool
  Review enumeration lists/codelists to make them more “human readable” and/or update them where necessary	SE: No.  Do not change if not necessary as it will only creates confusion. Better to keep constant.
  Having error codes accompanied with an English explanation	SE: There is a list of error codes available
  Harmonise the terminology in the guidance
  Adding “information not available”	SE: In conjunction with annex zero? An empty element commented in annex 0 should work?
  All GML data to be included in XML	SE: No. We do not recommend double reporting.
  A document with all validation checks would be needed	SE: Exists all ready
  Update the guidance including quality checks (documented in http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/WFD/WFD_521_2016/QA-QC/QC%20Rules%206.0.6(XMLs).xlsx)
  In order to make the reading of the guidance easier, it would be appropriate to make hyperlinks to the corresponding Annex

• SI - Slovenia (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 03 May 2019 22:06:10

  Aditional comment: Data that can be summarized from spatial analyzes (lengths of water bodies, area of RBD, ...) should not be duplicated regarding its inclusion into gml or xml reporting schemes.