<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3" -->
<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 on: Some musings on the JCR</title>
	<link>http://wowter.net/2008/06/20/some-musings-on-the-jcr/</link>
	<description>Comments on the library and information science world</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:47:22 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bibliometria &#187; Blog Archive &#187; JCR 2008</title>
		<link>http://wowter.net/2008/06/20/some-musings-on-the-jcr/#comment-1036</link>
		<dc:creator>Bibliometria &#187; Blog Archive &#187; JCR 2008</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:43:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://wowter.net/2008/06/20/some-musings-on-the-jcr/#comment-1036</guid>
		<description>[...] de la separación que establecen entre Science Edition y Social Science Edition (de hecho ya lo hacía el año pasado pero me pasó desapercibido). Yo añadiría que se dedicaran un poco a currarse las [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] de la separación que establecen entre Science Edition y Social Science Edition (de hecho ya lo hacía el año pasado pero me pasó desapercibido). Yo añadiría que se dedicaran un poco a currarse las [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 2008 Journal Citation Reports figures released at WoW! Wouter on the Web</title>
		<link>http://wowter.net/2008/06/20/some-musings-on-the-jcr/#comment-945</link>
		<dc:creator>2008 Journal Citation Reports figures released at WoW! Wouter on the Web</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:54:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://wowter.net/2008/06/20/some-musings-on-the-jcr/#comment-945</guid>
		<description>[...] to find out. It will take time though.The really major improvement Thomson should make, is to abolish the rather odd division between the two parts of the database. Currently I can&#8217;t find any arguments to stick to the demarcation lines between the Science [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] to find out. It will take time though.The really major improvement Thomson should make, is to abolish the rather odd division between the two parts of the database. Currently I can&#8217;t find any arguments to stick to the demarcation lines between the Science [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
