<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Should PLM 2.0 come with a new PLM format?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://plmtwine.com/2009/03/31/should-plm-20-come-with-a-new-plm-format/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://plmtwine.com/2009/03/31/should-plm-20-come-with-a-new-plm-format/</link>
	<description>Product Lifecycle Management by Oleg Shilovitsky</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:57:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Host PLM Data using Cloud Services &#171; Daily PLM Think Tank Blog</title>
		<link>http://plmtwine.com/2009/03/31/should-plm-20-come-with-a-new-plm-format/#comment-712</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Host PLM Data using Cloud Services &#171; Daily PLM Think Tank Blog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 05:35:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://plmtwine.com/?p=1011#comment-712</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] PLM Data using Cloud&#160;Services  Last week I discussed the option of having a new PLM format. http://plmtwine.com/2009/03/31/should-plm-20-come-with-a-new-plm-format/. My conclusion is that the new PLM 2.0 format can be proposed to handle available PLM IP and share [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] PLM Data using Cloud&nbsp;Services  Last week I discussed the option of having a new PLM format. <a href="http://plmtwine.com/2009/03/31/should-plm-20-come-with-a-new-plm-format/" rel="nofollow">http://plmtwine.com/2009/03/31/should-plm-20-come-with-a-new-plm-format/</a>. My conclusion is that the new PLM 2.0 format can be proposed to handle available PLM IP and share [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Can we build PLM bottom up? &#171; Daily PLM Think Tank Blog</title>
		<link>http://plmtwine.com/2009/03/31/should-plm-20-come-with-a-new-plm-format/#comment-582</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Can we build PLM bottom up? &#171; Daily PLM Think Tank Blog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:59:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://plmtwine.com/?p=1011#comment-582</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] is spent on designing and changing data models/schemas. We need to come up with small data blocks (maybe a new PLM data format? – see my previous blog [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] is spent on designing and changing data models/schemas. We need to come up with small data blocks (maybe a new PLM data format? – see my previous blog [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

