You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Additionally, I have noticed that the tagged version does not always match the expected commit. E.g., https://github.com/RDARegistry/RDA-Vocabularies/releases/tag/v5.1.0 does not incorporate 0979c91 even though on the RDA Registry website it clearly did as the values from the aforementioned commit appeared there (that is, before the release of version 5.1.1). This causes confusion and trouble.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Whilst working on the RDA Registry dataset, I encountered the following (minor) issues:
<notation_0__et>
. I only noticed this because some program I used had trouble accepting them (although strictly speaking they seem to be ok syntax-wise). It seems to me that these are redundant anyway as there already exists a properskos:notation
denoting the notation.Additionally, I have noticed that the tagged version does not always match the expected commit. E.g., https://github.com/RDARegistry/RDA-Vocabularies/releases/tag/v5.1.0 does not incorporate 0979c91 even though on the RDA Registry website it clearly did as the values from the aforementioned commit appeared there (that is, before the release of version 5.1.1). This causes confusion and trouble.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: