Post a comment on the text below

Previous comments

• SE - Sweden (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 02 May 2019 11:07:10

  Split the monitoring aspects into SW and GW (the table ”Chemical Monitoring” is very hard to manage due to its length)
  'xxxLastMonitored' = 9999 if not yet monitored, but reporting is not about future monitoring	SE: Yes.  We are positive to an omission
  Filling in the frequency and cycle for each site separately time consuming. Suggestion: to do this by program or per group of sites	SE does not agree, is an administrative burden
  Very few simplifications suggested (e.g. class MonitoringPurpose redundant because it is also reported in the GML. hence to be deleted)	SE is of the opinion the class should be deleted from the GML

• SI - Slovenia (invited by kristpet (disabled)) 03 May 2019 09:59:24

  1.Regarding Comment no. 154 in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls„, we agree with the aspects regarding the splitting of monitoring aspects into SW and GW Scheme.

  2.Regarding Comment no. 149  and 166 in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls„, we agree with the aspects pointed out in bouth comments that reporting is not intended to include information regarding future monitoring programs or planned changes.

  3.Regarding Comment no. 177 and 178  in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls„, we agree and strongly support the aspects pointed out in bouth comments regarding the monitoring frequency and cycle. We point out that reporting approach must be consistent for booth, chemical and ecological status.

  4.Regarding Comment no. 181  in "Talkback_comments_28.03.19.xls„, we agree with the aspect set out in the comment. Double reporting represents an additional administrative burden which is not acceptable.