<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for The Registry Blog</title>
	<link>http://metadataregistry.org/blog</link>
	<description>Where everyone has a license to register metadata</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:40:50 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Multiple languages and RDA by Bruce D'Arcus</title>
		<link>http://metadataregistry.org/blog/2009/03/09/multiple-languages-and-rda/#comment-4071</link>
		<dc:creator>Bruce D'Arcus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:35:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://metadataregistry.org/blog/2009/03/09/multiple-languages-and-rda/#comment-4071</guid>
		<description>It's a bit strange to have a URI end with numbers, though. E.g.:
&lt;code&gt;http://rdvocab.info/termList/RDAContentType/1020&lt;/code&gt;.
With RDF, you can just added the localized label to the schema This is not the case now; even the English-only strings are missing a language tag.

I'm also a little confused about why this URI is defined as a skos:Concept, rather than something higher level, like an rdfs:Class or owl:Class.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s a bit strange to have a URI end with numbers, though. E.g.:<br />
<code><a href="http://rdvocab.info/termList/RDAContentType/1020" rel="nofollow">http://rdvocab.info/termList/RDAContentType/1020</a></code>.<br />
With RDF, you can just added the localized label to the schema This is not the case now; even the English-only strings are missing a language tag.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m also a little confused about why this URI is defined as a skos:Concept, rather than something higher level, like an rdfs:Class or owl:Class.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Registry update by James</title>
		<link>http://metadataregistry.org/blog/2007/06/09/registry-update/#comment-345</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:13:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://metadataregistry.org/blog/2007/06/09/registry-update/#comment-345</guid>
		<description>How could you tell the Registry was too aggressive when checking the identity of preflabel?  What was it doing to the Registry?  I am still trying to get my head around this.  I am having difficulties which are probably simple.  I just can't see them.  Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How could you tell the Registry was too aggressive when checking the identity of preflabel?  What was it doing to the Registry?  I am still trying to get my head around this.  I am having difficulties which are probably simple.  I just can&#8217;t see them.  Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.404 seconds -->
