1. Sweden
Conclusions of the test phase for the WFD reporting guidance, schemas and reporting tools
Niklas Holmgren
Måns Denward
Katarina Vartia

2. Conclutions and experiences
The document is a little bit late in the process. Thus is the translated versions.
Initially - the process was a bit troublesome. Maybe due the switch of consultants? But is now good.
Updates and handling different versions at the resource page was not working well in the beginning. But is now good as is the info on the pages
It is a good guidance document
Good dialog at the WG DIS meetings
Anyone working with WFD should read it
12/2/2018
Presentation title Name

3. Conclutions and experiences - VISS
SE has worked with the schema elements and we have mapped our application to these. If, for example, the names of the schema elements are changed it will have consequences in our system. This might not be the same for those who use the Access database.
Changes between 6.0 and was promised to be “only direct inaccuracies change”. However, every node renamed in the schedules. Capitalized letters changed to small.
Should/could we have waited? No, the reporting volume requires time for preparation.
Need time for national quality check.
12/2/2018
Presentation title Name

4. 12/2/2018
Presentation title Name

5. 12/2/2018
Presentation title Name

6. A concern
Will all cross-compliance checks between different schedules mean that if we did not enter data in a certain place/way that we can not upload files elsewhere?
Certainly we will explain everything that we have not done in the Readme First document. But some things may have consequences in the uploading moment.
12/2/2018
Presentation title Name