<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_30_0458241</id>
	<title>Google Adds Scripting Capabilities To Google Docs</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1243674660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/" rel="nofollow">snydeq</a> writes <i>"Google will <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/google-adds-scripting-capabilities-google-docs-058">add scripting capabilities to Google Docs</a>, allowing organizations to customize their online applications and automate tasks. Google plans to sign up about 1,000 customers over the next few weeks to test the feature, called <a href="http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2009/05/old-tool-new-tricks.html">Google Apps Script</a>. It will be tested initially in Google Spreadsheets and extended to other Google Docs applications over time. The company isn't saying yet when Apps Script &mdash; which is based on JavaScript with object-based extensions added by Google &mdash; will be widely available. Google Docs users can <a href="http://sites.google.com/a/gdocstest.com/google-apps-script-preview/">already apply to try it out</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq writes " Google will add scripting capabilities to Google Docs , allowing organizations to customize their online applications and automate tasks .
Google plans to sign up about 1,000 customers over the next few weeks to test the feature , called Google Apps Script .
It will be tested initially in Google Spreadsheets and extended to other Google Docs applications over time .
The company is n't saying yet when Apps Script    which is based on JavaScript with object-based extensions added by Google    will be widely available .
Google Docs users can already apply to try it out .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq writes "Google will add scripting capabilities to Google Docs, allowing organizations to customize their online applications and automate tasks.
Google plans to sign up about 1,000 customers over the next few weeks to test the feature, called Google Apps Script.
It will be tested initially in Google Spreadsheets and extended to other Google Docs applications over time.
The company isn't saying yet when Apps Script — which is based on JavaScript with object-based extensions added by Google — will be widely available.
Google Docs users can already apply to try it out.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28149223</id>
	<title>Re:The end of Microsoft Office?</title>
	<author>Macka</author>
	<datestamp>1243697220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For some people it already is.   I know a couple of people (not me yet) who've decided that for home stuff they just don't need a full blown PC with Office software anymore and are using Google for everything now.  Google Docs are perfectly adequate for writing letters and doing simple tasks that require a spreadsheet.  They will only get more sophisticated, and internet bandwidth will keep on increasing, so this will only get better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For some people it already is .
I know a couple of people ( not me yet ) who 've decided that for home stuff they just do n't need a full blown PC with Office software anymore and are using Google for everything now .
Google Docs are perfectly adequate for writing letters and doing simple tasks that require a spreadsheet .
They will only get more sophisticated , and internet bandwidth will keep on increasing , so this will only get better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some people it already is.
I know a couple of people (not me yet) who've decided that for home stuff they just don't need a full blown PC with Office software anymore and are using Google for everything now.
Google Docs are perfectly adequate for writing letters and doing simple tasks that require a spreadsheet.
They will only get more sophisticated, and internet bandwidth will keep on increasing, so this will only get better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148393</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about Google Docs anymore?</title>
	<author>Philip\_the\_physicist</author>
	<datestamp>1243684500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember, the reason not every tool is a hammer is because not every problem is a nail. Google are doing a good job of remembering the key Unix design philosiphy: "Do one thing, do it right, and make sure you can talk to everything else". Each of their apps is fairly self contained, and yet can be tied together with their APIs. Thus, it seems likely that wave, along with everything else, will be useable as a data source for Docs macros, once the API is complete.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember , the reason not every tool is a hammer is because not every problem is a nail .
Google are doing a good job of remembering the key Unix design philosiphy : " Do one thing , do it right , and make sure you can talk to everything else " .
Each of their apps is fairly self contained , and yet can be tied together with their APIs .
Thus , it seems likely that wave , along with everything else , will be useable as a data source for Docs macros , once the API is complete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember, the reason not every tool is a hammer is because not every problem is a nail.
Google are doing a good job of remembering the key Unix design philosiphy: "Do one thing, do it right, and make sure you can talk to everything else".
Each of their apps is fairly self contained, and yet can be tied together with their APIs.
Thus, it seems likely that wave, along with everything else, will be useable as a data source for Docs macros, once the API is complete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28151689</id>
	<title>Re:Its just browser shit</title>
	<author>AnyoneEB</author>
	<datestamp>1243716960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a protocol which I believe is based on XMPP (Jabber) and makes heavy use of HTML5, so any client would have to pretty much embed a web browser in order to view messages. Google made a web client first because (1) it's Google, they like coding for web and (2) it is a quick and easy way to make an app cross-platform. If Google does not make a native client for it (like they made Google Talk), then other projects will because a lot of people (including myself) agree with you that the web is the wrong place for an IM client, especially seeing as persistence is part of the protocol so there is no real advantage to running the protocol on someone else's server as the protocol should effectively sync all the clients you use automatically. Most likely, once it is finalized, there will be multiple open source projects to create native clients.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a protocol which I believe is based on XMPP ( Jabber ) and makes heavy use of HTML5 , so any client would have to pretty much embed a web browser in order to view messages .
Google made a web client first because ( 1 ) it 's Google , they like coding for web and ( 2 ) it is a quick and easy way to make an app cross-platform .
If Google does not make a native client for it ( like they made Google Talk ) , then other projects will because a lot of people ( including myself ) agree with you that the web is the wrong place for an IM client , especially seeing as persistence is part of the protocol so there is no real advantage to running the protocol on someone else 's server as the protocol should effectively sync all the clients you use automatically .
Most likely , once it is finalized , there will be multiple open source projects to create native clients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a protocol which I believe is based on XMPP (Jabber) and makes heavy use of HTML5, so any client would have to pretty much embed a web browser in order to view messages.
Google made a web client first because (1) it's Google, they like coding for web and (2) it is a quick and easy way to make an app cross-platform.
If Google does not make a native client for it (like they made Google Talk), then other projects will because a lot of people (including myself) agree with you that the web is the wrong place for an IM client, especially seeing as persistence is part of the protocol so there is no real advantage to running the protocol on someone else's server as the protocol should effectively sync all the clients you use automatically.
Most likely, once it is finalized, there will be multiple open source projects to create native clients.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28149841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148337</id>
	<title>but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243683480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but...can you delete folders yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but...can you delete folders yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but...can you delete folders yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148767</id>
	<title>Re:The end of Microsoft Office?</title>
	<author>physicsphairy</author>
	<datestamp>1243691280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What will happen when they'll overcome those limitations?</p></div><p>Every one will stand up and clap and then get all misty eyed, because darnit if trying your hardest and making it across the finish line isn't more important than winning!
</p><p>Finish up with hugs all around and roll credits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What will happen when they 'll overcome those limitations ? Every one will stand up and clap and then get all misty eyed , because darnit if trying your hardest and making it across the finish line is n't more important than winning !
Finish up with hugs all around and roll credits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will happen when they'll overcome those limitations?Every one will stand up and clap and then get all misty eyed, because darnit if trying your hardest and making it across the finish line isn't more important than winning!
Finish up with hugs all around and roll credits.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148523</id>
	<title>SANT GOOGLE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243687020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is the best !!!</p><p>Bye....</p><p>Santiago<br>Equipo NoLoS&#195;&#169;<br>nolosearquitectura@gmail.com<br>www.nolosearquitectura.es</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is the best ! !
! Bye....SantiagoEquipo NoLoS     nolosearquitectura @ gmail.comwww.nolosearquitectura.es</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is the best !!
!Bye....SantiagoEquipo NoLoSÃ©nolosearquitectura@gmail.comwww.nolosearquitectura.es</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148607</id>
	<title>Re:What about integration between Google Apps?</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1243688520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The user has a point.  There's a massive number of companies, large and small, that have business processes dependant on VBA scripts in Microsoft Office apps.  This keeps a lot of companies using Office, because they don't want to re-create those scripts -- many of which were created by people who don't know java; or, to be fair, don't know how to code in Basic either.  (some of the stuff I've seen <b>*shudder*</b>)  </p><p>If Google can offer similar scripting capability, and interpret existing VBA scripts, they might take some of Microsoft's business.  Unfortunately, there are licensing fees Microsoft demands for VBA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The user has a point .
There 's a massive number of companies , large and small , that have business processes dependant on VBA scripts in Microsoft Office apps .
This keeps a lot of companies using Office , because they do n't want to re-create those scripts -- many of which were created by people who do n't know java ; or , to be fair , do n't know how to code in Basic either .
( some of the stuff I 've seen * shudder * ) If Google can offer similar scripting capability , and interpret existing VBA scripts , they might take some of Microsoft 's business .
Unfortunately , there are licensing fees Microsoft demands for VBA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The user has a point.
There's a massive number of companies, large and small, that have business processes dependant on VBA scripts in Microsoft Office apps.
This keeps a lot of companies using Office, because they don't want to re-create those scripts -- many of which were created by people who don't know java; or, to be fair, don't know how to code in Basic either.
(some of the stuff I've seen *shudder*)  If Google can offer similar scripting capability, and interpret existing VBA scripts, they might take some of Microsoft's business.
Unfortunately, there are licensing fees Microsoft demands for VBA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148901</id>
	<title>Re:The end of Microsoft Office?</title>
	<author>mspohr</author>
	<datestamp>1243693500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>64 rows is enough for anyone.<p>

Seriously, lots of people use Excel as a database and they generate a lot of errors since random flying fingers can generate errors which are impossible to find... and don't even get me started on pivot tables...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>64 rows is enough for anyone .
Seriously , lots of people use Excel as a database and they generate a lot of errors since random flying fingers can generate errors which are impossible to find... and do n't even get me started on pivot tables.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>64 rows is enough for anyone.
Seriously, lots of people use Excel as a database and they generate a lot of errors since random flying fingers can generate errors which are impossible to find... and don't even get me started on pivot tables...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148727</id>
	<title>What's the point if you can't share</title>
	<author>rduke15</author>
	<datestamp>1243690800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That may be cool, but the point of Google Docs (for me at least), is to be able to share documents across the web, and edit them online, which you cannot do (reliably) at the moment.</p><p>Currently, if I make a document on the web, and send a link to it to some people, <a href="http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Google+Docs/thread?tid=6a70db1cb1eab4e8&amp;hl=en" title="google.com">they cannot see it unless they happen to have a Google account</a> [google.com], or they are willing to create one or go through some <a href="http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Google+Docs/thread?tid=6a70db1cb1eab4e8&amp;hl=en#fid\_6a70db1cb1eab4e800046ab7c4bf85c1" title="google.com">ridiculous voodoo</a> [google.com]. So for me, it's useless as it is, and new features seem irrelevant. Yes, I know it's Beta etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That may be cool , but the point of Google Docs ( for me at least ) , is to be able to share documents across the web , and edit them online , which you can not do ( reliably ) at the moment.Currently , if I make a document on the web , and send a link to it to some people , they can not see it unless they happen to have a Google account [ google.com ] , or they are willing to create one or go through some ridiculous voodoo [ google.com ] .
So for me , it 's useless as it is , and new features seem irrelevant .
Yes , I know it 's Beta etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That may be cool, but the point of Google Docs (for me at least), is to be able to share documents across the web, and edit them online, which you cannot do (reliably) at the moment.Currently, if I make a document on the web, and send a link to it to some people, they cannot see it unless they happen to have a Google account [google.com], or they are willing to create one or go through some ridiculous voodoo [google.com].
So for me, it's useless as it is, and new features seem irrelevant.
Yes, I know it's Beta etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148545</id>
	<title>mo3 Up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243687500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">may be hur7ing DOg THAT IT IS. IT</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>may be hur7ing DOg THAT IT IS .
IT [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>may be hur7ing DOg THAT IT IS.
IT [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148629</id>
	<title>Re:Do not want</title>
	<author>physicsphairy</author>
	<datestamp>1243689060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is some confusion evidently being caused by the summary.  This is not a feature being offered for Google Apps, per se, but rather <em>Google Apps for Your Domain</em>.</p><p>Malicious implementations is an utterly irrelevant concern.  If I own a domain, I can put malicious software on there whether or not I am using Google Apps.</p><p>Personally, I think this is amazing and brilliant and the way the web should be.  Why would you not want your software to be extensible?  We will probably start seeing 'competitors' to gmail who use gmail for the base and add in extra features (even if google is good now do you want to be locked in and dependent on their design decisions for the rest of your life?) and I am sure companies will have plenty of use for adding scripts to their internal email service.  (not that they couldn't do that before, but let's consider the basic undeniable and wonderful fact that gmail is not outlook express)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is some confusion evidently being caused by the summary .
This is not a feature being offered for Google Apps , per se , but rather Google Apps for Your Domain.Malicious implementations is an utterly irrelevant concern .
If I own a domain , I can put malicious software on there whether or not I am using Google Apps.Personally , I think this is amazing and brilliant and the way the web should be .
Why would you not want your software to be extensible ?
We will probably start seeing 'competitors ' to gmail who use gmail for the base and add in extra features ( even if google is good now do you want to be locked in and dependent on their design decisions for the rest of your life ?
) and I am sure companies will have plenty of use for adding scripts to their internal email service .
( not that they could n't do that before , but let 's consider the basic undeniable and wonderful fact that gmail is not outlook express )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is some confusion evidently being caused by the summary.
This is not a feature being offered for Google Apps, per se, but rather Google Apps for Your Domain.Malicious implementations is an utterly irrelevant concern.
If I own a domain, I can put malicious software on there whether or not I am using Google Apps.Personally, I think this is amazing and brilliant and the way the web should be.
Why would you not want your software to be extensible?
We will probably start seeing 'competitors' to gmail who use gmail for the base and add in extra features (even if google is good now do you want to be locked in and dependent on their design decisions for the rest of your life?
) and I am sure companies will have plenty of use for adding scripts to their internal email service.
(not that they couldn't do that before, but let's consider the basic undeniable and wonderful fact that gmail is not outlook express)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148217</id>
	<title>What about integration between Google Apps?</title>
	<author>ThePhilips</author>
	<datestamp>1243681080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> If they want to make any impression on M$Office advanced users, they have to also offer inter-application scripting. e.g. script to convert special text document to spreadsheet. or script to convert spreadsheet lines into appointments.

</p><p> The forte of M$Office is <i>seamless</i> - from scripting point of view - integration between the applications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they want to make any impression on M $ Office advanced users , they have to also offer inter-application scripting .
e.g. script to convert special text document to spreadsheet .
or script to convert spreadsheet lines into appointments .
The forte of M $ Office is seamless - from scripting point of view - integration between the applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If they want to make any impression on M$Office advanced users, they have to also offer inter-application scripting.
e.g. script to convert special text document to spreadsheet.
or script to convert spreadsheet lines into appointments.
The forte of M$Office is seamless - from scripting point of view - integration between the applications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28149071</id>
	<title>Uh oh...</title>
	<author>sys.stdout.write</author>
	<datestamp>1243695600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>glob(*.*).textReplace("company", "boobs lolz")</htmltext>
<tokenext>glob ( * .
* ) .textReplace ( " company " , " boobs lolz " )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>glob(*.
*).textReplace("company", "boobs lolz")</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148347</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about Google Docs anymore?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243683720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Centralized repositories are so 90ies....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Centralized repositories are so 90ies... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Centralized repositories are so 90ies....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148199</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about Google Docs anymore?</title>
	<author>patro</author>
	<datestamp>1243680660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Got me thinking. Will Slashdot and similar forums exist in their current form a few years from now? Or will they transform into wave servers and topics like this one will be waves on those servers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Got me thinking .
Will Slashdot and similar forums exist in their current form a few years from now ?
Or will they transform into wave servers and topics like this one will be waves on those servers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Got me thinking.
Will Slashdot and similar forums exist in their current form a few years from now?
Or will they transform into wave servers and topics like this one will be waves on those servers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148127</id>
	<title>Who cares about Google Docs anymore?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243678500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wave is set to pretty much assimilate the web. Just got done watching the demo at <a href="http://wave.google.com/" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">wave.google.com</a> [google.com] and I think I need to change my boxers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wave is set to pretty much assimilate the web .
Just got done watching the demo at wave.google.com [ google.com ] and I think I need to change my boxers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wave is set to pretty much assimilate the web.
Just got done watching the demo at wave.google.com [google.com] and I think I need to change my boxers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148225</id>
	<title>Take the high road...</title>
	<author>Vexler</author>
	<datestamp>1243681380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hope this turns out to be more Perl than Hypercard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hope this turns out to be more Perl than Hypercard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hope this turns out to be more Perl than Hypercard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28149733</id>
	<title>Re:Do not want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243701900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are  you saying we should trade security for freedom?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you saying we should trade security for freedom ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are  you saying we should trade security for freedom?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148379</id>
	<title>Security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243684200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this is really secured tightly, it could work really well.<br>And since they have been working on it for quite a while now, i expect it to be pretty secure.<br>Once they open it for testing, should be easy to see if it is secure or not.</p><p>I've been waiting for scripting for so long.<br>The filters were fairly decent if done correctly, but still not as good as full-on scripting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is really secured tightly , it could work really well.And since they have been working on it for quite a while now , i expect it to be pretty secure.Once they open it for testing , should be easy to see if it is secure or not.I 've been waiting for scripting for so long.The filters were fairly decent if done correctly , but still not as good as full-on scripting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is really secured tightly, it could work really well.And since they have been working on it for quite a while now, i expect it to be pretty secure.Once they open it for testing, should be easy to see if it is secure or not.I've been waiting for scripting for so long.The filters were fairly decent if done correctly, but still not as good as full-on scripting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148169</id>
	<title>poo0o0ooo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243679640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in your ASSsssassssaasassss..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in your ASSsssassssaasassss. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in your ASSsssassssaasassss..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148457</id>
	<title>Google Docs' features are still wanting</title>
	<author>bogaboga</author>
	<datestamp>1243685820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While Google Docs is more stable, its features are still wanting compared to Zoho Writer. Google Docs still has nothing to challenge Zoho Writer's Zoho Creator after all thins long!</p><p>Sometimes I wonder whether it was a mistake not to buy Zoho. Those folks at Zoho are quite amazing. There is a an almost 2 year old <a href="http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007/07/zoho-vs-google-docs.html" title="blogspot.com"> comparison </a> [blogspot.com] of the two in which I'd say Zoho beats Google hands down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While Google Docs is more stable , its features are still wanting compared to Zoho Writer .
Google Docs still has nothing to challenge Zoho Writer 's Zoho Creator after all thins long ! Sometimes I wonder whether it was a mistake not to buy Zoho .
Those folks at Zoho are quite amazing .
There is a an almost 2 year old comparison [ blogspot.com ] of the two in which I 'd say Zoho beats Google hands down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While Google Docs is more stable, its features are still wanting compared to Zoho Writer.
Google Docs still has nothing to challenge Zoho Writer's Zoho Creator after all thins long!Sometimes I wonder whether it was a mistake not to buy Zoho.
Those folks at Zoho are quite amazing.
There is a an almost 2 year old  comparison  [blogspot.com] of the two in which I'd say Zoho beats Google hands down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148845</id>
	<title>Obongo gets intelligence lesson at burger joint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243692600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amateur hour at the WH continues...</p><p><a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/In\_which\_the\_president\_discovers\_an\_American\_intelligence\_agency\_at\_Five\_Guys.html" title="politico.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/In\_which\_the\_president\_discovers\_an\_American\_intelligence\_agency\_at\_Five\_Guys.html</a> [politico.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amateur hour at the WH continues...http : //www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/In \ _which \ _the \ _president \ _discovers \ _an \ _American \ _intelligence \ _agency \ _at \ _Five \ _Guys.html [ politico.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amateur hour at the WH continues...http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/In\_which\_the\_president\_discovers\_an\_American\_intelligence\_agency\_at\_Five\_Guys.html [politico.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148881</id>
	<title>psssst!</title>
	<author>tundra\_man</author>
	<datestamp>1243693140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did I hear that right? Google has GAS?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did I hear that right ?
Google has GAS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did I hear that right?
Google has GAS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148285</id>
	<title>The end of Microsoft Office?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243682520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, we all know that there are two kinds of companies: those that afford buying quality custom software and those (a lot!) that can't and use Excel and Word scripts. With the power of sharing, multiple simultaneous editors, chat, publishing, safe backups, etc. could Google Docs be considered a more powerful Office suite? They still have some limitations like the number of rows in Google Docs Spreadsheet is a lot lower than the number of rows limit in Microsoft Office Excel. What will happen when they'll overcome those limitations?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , we all know that there are two kinds of companies : those that afford buying quality custom software and those ( a lot !
) that ca n't and use Excel and Word scripts .
With the power of sharing , multiple simultaneous editors , chat , publishing , safe backups , etc .
could Google Docs be considered a more powerful Office suite ?
They still have some limitations like the number of rows in Google Docs Spreadsheet is a lot lower than the number of rows limit in Microsoft Office Excel .
What will happen when they 'll overcome those limitations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, we all know that there are two kinds of companies: those that afford buying quality custom software and those (a lot!
) that can't and use Excel and Word scripts.
With the power of sharing, multiple simultaneous editors, chat, publishing, safe backups, etc.
could Google Docs be considered a more powerful Office suite?
They still have some limitations like the number of rows in Google Docs Spreadsheet is a lot lower than the number of rows limit in Microsoft Office Excel.
What will happen when they'll overcome those limitations?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28151625</id>
	<title>Re:Do not want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243716540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The interwebs is already under assault from script-borne malware in PDFs, Flash, QuickTime and of course Microsoft Office has always been widely exploited in the past. Take, for example, Javascript support in Adobe Acrobat.. who uses it? When we turned support off for 5000 users exactly *zero* people noticed. It seems that these things are only of use to the Bad Guys.</p><p>Imagine the fun they will have with docs scripting combined with the wonderful world of XSS attacks. What could possibly go wrong?</p></div><p>I'm sorry, you should rethink this assertion.  It's not "the interwebs" that's under assault from the threats you list.  It's "Microsoft Windows" that is threatened.</p><p>Let it fail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The interwebs is already under assault from script-borne malware in PDFs , Flash , QuickTime and of course Microsoft Office has always been widely exploited in the past .
Take , for example , Javascript support in Adobe Acrobat.. who uses it ?
When we turned support off for 5000 users exactly * zero * people noticed .
It seems that these things are only of use to the Bad Guys.Imagine the fun they will have with docs scripting combined with the wonderful world of XSS attacks .
What could possibly go wrong ? I 'm sorry , you should rethink this assertion .
It 's not " the interwebs " that 's under assault from the threats you list .
It 's " Microsoft Windows " that is threatened.Let it fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The interwebs is already under assault from script-borne malware in PDFs, Flash, QuickTime and of course Microsoft Office has always been widely exploited in the past.
Take, for example, Javascript support in Adobe Acrobat.. who uses it?
When we turned support off for 5000 users exactly *zero* people noticed.
It seems that these things are only of use to the Bad Guys.Imagine the fun they will have with docs scripting combined with the wonderful world of XSS attacks.
What could possibly go wrong?I'm sorry, you should rethink this assertion.
It's not "the interwebs" that's under assault from the threats you list.
It's "Microsoft Windows" that is threatened.Let it fail.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148343</id>
	<title>nice feature</title>
	<author>alsmair</author>
	<datestamp>1243683720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so we can create macros. not record with this feature</htmltext>
<tokenext>so we can create macros .
not record with this feature</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so we can create macros.
not record with this feature</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28149113</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about Google Docs anymore?</title>
	<author>Macka</author>
	<datestamp>1243695960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for the link, I'd not seen that.   Just spent the last 1hr20 watching the vid.   WOW, this answers my needs on so many levels.  I look forward to the day when this is as ubiquitous as SMTP, and email can finally be put to rest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the link , I 'd not seen that .
Just spent the last 1hr20 watching the vid .
WOW , this answers my needs on so many levels .
I look forward to the day when this is as ubiquitous as SMTP , and email can finally be put to rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the link, I'd not seen that.
Just spent the last 1hr20 watching the vid.
WOW, this answers my needs on so many levels.
I look forward to the day when this is as ubiquitous as SMTP, and email can finally be put to rest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148709</id>
	<title>javascript</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1243690620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Javascript, you can never have too many obscure subdialects of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Javascript , you can never have too many obscure subdialects of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Javascript, you can never have too many obscure subdialects of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148503</id>
	<title>i needed to know the facts about FUDgePacking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243686660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so i just binged it. AHHHAHAHAHA</p><p>robbIE, you're so 'funny' with your patentdead PostBlock devise. you said you'd never do that? like meatloaf. just another casualty of the greed/fear/ego based infomania wars, eye gas?</p><p>nothing will ever top the 'gnu online dating' scheme as far as we're concerned. better days ahead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so i just binged it .
AHHHAHAHAHArobbIE , you 're so 'funny ' with your patentdead PostBlock devise .
you said you 'd never do that ?
like meatloaf .
just another casualty of the greed/fear/ego based infomania wars , eye gas ? nothing will ever top the 'gnu online dating ' scheme as far as we 're concerned .
better days ahead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so i just binged it.
AHHHAHAHAHArobbIE, you're so 'funny' with your patentdead PostBlock devise.
you said you'd never do that?
like meatloaf.
just another casualty of the greed/fear/ego based infomania wars, eye gas?nothing will ever top the 'gnu online dating' scheme as far as we're concerned.
better days ahead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28149841</id>
	<title>Its just browser shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243702680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it was a real program, it *might* be interesting, even though it doesn't really add anything new.</p><p>But crap to run in a browser?</p><p>Hell no.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was a real program , it * might * be interesting , even though it does n't really add anything new.But crap to run in a browser ? Hell no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was a real program, it *might* be interesting, even though it doesn't really add anything new.But crap to run in a browser?Hell no.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28151647</id>
	<title>Breaking news...</title>
	<author>MasseKid</author>
	<datestamp>1243716720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another google doc scripting vounerability has been found in the wild today.  Researchers are still unclear why google thought they were smart enough to implement safe scripting.  This marks the seventh nuclear missle fired by google docs this week.  The goverment has decided, grudgingly, that perhaps switching to google docs was not the smartest move ever.<br> <br>

Seriously, who thought this was a good idea?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another google doc scripting vounerability has been found in the wild today .
Researchers are still unclear why google thought they were smart enough to implement safe scripting .
This marks the seventh nuclear missle fired by google docs this week .
The goverment has decided , grudgingly , that perhaps switching to google docs was not the smartest move ever .
Seriously , who thought this was a good idea ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another google doc scripting vounerability has been found in the wild today.
Researchers are still unclear why google thought they were smart enough to implement safe scripting.
This marks the seventh nuclear missle fired by google docs this week.
The goverment has decided, grudgingly, that perhaps switching to google docs was not the smartest move ever.
Seriously, who thought this was a good idea?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148263</id>
	<title>Takes me back...</title>
	<author>Koiu Lpoi</author>
	<datestamp>1243681980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I seem to remember that programmability was the exact reason so many security experts despised the MS Office Suite. How long until the first Google Docs based malware installation?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember that programmability was the exact reason so many security experts despised the MS Office Suite .
How long until the first Google Docs based malware installation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember that programmability was the exact reason so many security experts despised the MS Office Suite.
How long until the first Google Docs based malware installation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148267</id>
	<title>Do not want</title>
	<author>Dynamoo</author>
	<datestamp>1243682040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The interwebs is already under assault from script-borne malware in PDFs, Flash, QuickTime and of course Microsoft Office has always been widely exploited in the past. Take, for example, Javascript support in Adobe Acrobat.. who uses it? When we turned support off for 5000 users exactly *zero* people noticed. It seems that these things are only of use to the Bad Guys.
<p>
Imagine the fun they will have with docs scripting combined with the wonderful world of XSS attacks. What could possibly go wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The interwebs is already under assault from script-borne malware in PDFs , Flash , QuickTime and of course Microsoft Office has always been widely exploited in the past .
Take , for example , Javascript support in Adobe Acrobat.. who uses it ?
When we turned support off for 5000 users exactly * zero * people noticed .
It seems that these things are only of use to the Bad Guys .
Imagine the fun they will have with docs scripting combined with the wonderful world of XSS attacks .
What could possibly go wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The interwebs is already under assault from script-borne malware in PDFs, Flash, QuickTime and of course Microsoft Office has always been widely exploited in the past.
Take, for example, Javascript support in Adobe Acrobat.. who uses it?
When we turned support off for 5000 users exactly *zero* people noticed.
It seems that these things are only of use to the Bad Guys.
Imagine the fun they will have with docs scripting combined with the wonderful world of XSS attacks.
What could possibly go wrong?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_0458241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28149223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_0458241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28149113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_0458241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_0458241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_0458241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28151689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28149841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_0458241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_0458241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28151625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_0458241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_0458241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_0458241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_0458241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28149733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_0458241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_0458241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_0458241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28149223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148767
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_0458241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_0458241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148607
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_0458241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28151625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28149733
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_0458241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28149113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28149841
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28151689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148199
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_0458241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_0458241.28148337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
