<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_01_1322249</id>
	<title>A Curmudgeonly Look At Google Wave</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1243865400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://byronmiller.typepad.com/" rel="nofollow">rsmiller510</a> writes <i>"For those of you who think <a href="https://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/05/28/1912226/Googles-Wave-Blurs-Chat-Email-Collaboration-Software">Google Wave is all that and a bag of chips</a>, I put on the brakes and give you <a href="http://www.daniweb.com/blogs/entry4400.html">a few questions to ponder</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>rsmiller510 writes " For those of you who think Google Wave is all that and a bag of chips , I put on the brakes and give you a few questions to ponder .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rsmiller510 writes "For those of you who think Google Wave is all that and a bag of chips, I put on the brakes and give you a few questions to ponder.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28172059</id>
	<title>Re:Please repost your article.</title>
	<author>X0563511</author>
	<datestamp>1243888020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Block all access to intellitxt.com and your problem goes away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Block all access to intellitxt.com and your problem goes away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Block all access to intellitxt.com and your problem goes away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169707</id>
	<title>Re:What about spam?</title>
	<author>Etylowy</author>
	<datestamp>1243878180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And once any wave server run by any of the multiple companies is compromised: their captcha is bypassed, the weak user passwords are cracked or snatched by spyware or any of the multiple things that are now problem with email spam happens wave users are spamed till they admit they need viagra<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Since the communications between wave servers seems more secure all that will be gone is forged senders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And once any wave server run by any of the multiple companies is compromised : their captcha is bypassed , the weak user passwords are cracked or snatched by spyware or any of the multiple things that are now problem with email spam happens wave users are spamed till they admit they need viagra ; - ) Since the communications between wave servers seems more secure all that will be gone is forged senders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And once any wave server run by any of the multiple companies is compromised: their captcha is bypassed, the weak user passwords are cracked or snatched by spyware or any of the multiple things that are now problem with email spam happens wave users are spamed till they admit they need viagra ;-)Since the communications between wave servers seems more secure all that will be gone is forged senders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28173047</id>
	<title>Re:40 minutes</title>
	<author>AigariusDebian</author>
	<datestamp>1243848540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about the robot that does automatic runtime translation of the document into a language you understand. They showed one person writing in English and have the bot translate the document (chat) to French in runtime for a peson who was not that fluent in English. And then it translated back, when the other person replied.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about the robot that does automatic runtime translation of the document into a language you understand .
They showed one person writing in English and have the bot translate the document ( chat ) to French in runtime for a peson who was not that fluent in English .
And then it translated back , when the other person replied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about the robot that does automatic runtime translation of the document into a language you understand.
They showed one person writing in English and have the bot translate the document (chat) to French in runtime for a peson who was not that fluent in English.
And then it translated back, when the other person replied.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168045</id>
	<title>heh, funny</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1243871040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I checked my submissions. I have a pending submission that turned a year old last month and crap like this makes it through. Good QC,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I checked my submissions .
I have a pending submission that turned a year old last month and crap like this makes it through .
Good QC , / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I checked my submissions.
I have a pending submission that turned a year old last month and crap like this makes it through.
Good QC, /.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167861</id>
	<title>Bandwidth and Hosting</title>
	<author>Marc\_Hawke</author>
	<datestamp>1243870320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The concerns I noticed were more technical than the ones he looked at.</p><p>Hosting...  Every email/every conversation will need to be stored on some central server, complete with any images and change history.   Switching to a central location seems like a step backwards from the distributed system we have already with email.</p><p>Bandwidth.   Every change, send character by character to whoever happens to have it open.  That's a lot of 'real-time' bandwidth for this central location.   Both of these would work great in a corporate level with a WAVE server running on the LAN, but when it goes global, those servers will be smokin'</p><p>Especially with the concept of wave enabled blogs.    If you  blog hits DIGG, then the wave server will be sending out your edits to thousands of people simultaneously.   I wonder what the datapath is.    I'm sure Google/Blogspot has a lot of bandwidth, but when you combine all IM, EMAIL, BLOG traffic along the same pipes to a central location....</p><p>I just wonder about the scalability of the hosting solution.</p><p>They did say that organizations can start their own WAVE server.  Sounds like it works much the same way the Jabber (XMPP?) protocol works.   But still,  if this catches on, I see a future of new congestion problems.</p><p>On the flip side...I was very impressed by the demo...and if this catches on in a big way (and works) it could be a serious redefining of communication on the web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The concerns I noticed were more technical than the ones he looked at.Hosting... Every email/every conversation will need to be stored on some central server , complete with any images and change history .
Switching to a central location seems like a step backwards from the distributed system we have already with email.Bandwidth .
Every change , send character by character to whoever happens to have it open .
That 's a lot of 'real-time ' bandwidth for this central location .
Both of these would work great in a corporate level with a WAVE server running on the LAN , but when it goes global , those servers will be smokin'Especially with the concept of wave enabled blogs .
If you blog hits DIGG , then the wave server will be sending out your edits to thousands of people simultaneously .
I wonder what the datapath is .
I 'm sure Google/Blogspot has a lot of bandwidth , but when you combine all IM , EMAIL , BLOG traffic along the same pipes to a central location....I just wonder about the scalability of the hosting solution.They did say that organizations can start their own WAVE server .
Sounds like it works much the same way the Jabber ( XMPP ?
) protocol works .
But still , if this catches on , I see a future of new congestion problems.On the flip side...I was very impressed by the demo...and if this catches on in a big way ( and works ) it could be a serious redefining of communication on the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The concerns I noticed were more technical than the ones he looked at.Hosting...  Every email/every conversation will need to be stored on some central server, complete with any images and change history.
Switching to a central location seems like a step backwards from the distributed system we have already with email.Bandwidth.
Every change, send character by character to whoever happens to have it open.
That's a lot of 'real-time' bandwidth for this central location.
Both of these would work great in a corporate level with a WAVE server running on the LAN, but when it goes global, those servers will be smokin'Especially with the concept of wave enabled blogs.
If you  blog hits DIGG, then the wave server will be sending out your edits to thousands of people simultaneously.
I wonder what the datapath is.
I'm sure Google/Blogspot has a lot of bandwidth, but when you combine all IM, EMAIL, BLOG traffic along the same pipes to a central location....I just wonder about the scalability of the hosting solution.They did say that organizations can start their own WAVE server.
Sounds like it works much the same way the Jabber (XMPP?
) protocol works.
But still,  if this catches on, I see a future of new congestion problems.On the flip side...I was very impressed by the demo...and if this catches on in a big way (and works) it could be a serious redefining of communication on the web.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168059</id>
	<title>Give me THREADED multi-user chat.</title>
	<author>jeffb (2.718)</author>
	<datestamp>1243871100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Throwing every chat comment into a linear sequence certainly doesn't scale well for large conversations.  Has anyone tried building chat into a tree, much like we see right here?  It might tend to fragment conversations, but if the conversation gets too large, that's what's <i>supposed</i> to happen.</p><p>What I <i>really</i> want to see is something like the "decision duel" system from Marc Stiegler's <i>David's Sling</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Throwing every chat comment into a linear sequence certainly does n't scale well for large conversations .
Has anyone tried building chat into a tree , much like we see right here ?
It might tend to fragment conversations , but if the conversation gets too large , that 's what 's supposed to happen.What I really want to see is something like the " decision duel " system from Marc Stiegler 's David 's Sling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Throwing every chat comment into a linear sequence certainly doesn't scale well for large conversations.
Has anyone tried building chat into a tree, much like we see right here?
It might tend to fragment conversations, but if the conversation gets too large, that's what's supposed to happen.What I really want to see is something like the "decision duel" system from Marc Stiegler's David's Sling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168021</id>
	<title>Re:Rebuttle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243870980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Email is too complicated for the masses. The Internet is too complicated for the masses. The ones that picked up email and internet will pick up Wave, if they have to.</p></div></blockquote><p>The problem I see with these dumb web apps is that a manager can dictate you use an unsuitable tool simply because they're comfortable with it. Basecamp is useless for software developers but I've been forced to use it on a couple of occasions. So I'm sure I'll be asked to use google wave before long -- a waste of my employers time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Email is too complicated for the masses .
The Internet is too complicated for the masses .
The ones that picked up email and internet will pick up Wave , if they have to.The problem I see with these dumb web apps is that a manager can dictate you use an unsuitable tool simply because they 're comfortable with it .
Basecamp is useless for software developers but I 've been forced to use it on a couple of occasions .
So I 'm sure I 'll be asked to use google wave before long -- a waste of my employers time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Email is too complicated for the masses.
The Internet is too complicated for the masses.
The ones that picked up email and internet will pick up Wave, if they have to.The problem I see with these dumb web apps is that a manager can dictate you use an unsuitable tool simply because they're comfortable with it.
Basecamp is useless for software developers but I've been forced to use it on a couple of occasions.
So I'm sure I'll be asked to use google wave before long -- a waste of my employers time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168401</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of time</title>
	<author>Co0Ps</author>
	<datestamp>1243872540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree, it's like the no original research policy on Wikipedia. If your blog post is so damn important that it deserves to be slashdotted, someone else will do it for you. And I think the biggest problem of the criticism in the article was that it was fuzzy and irrelevant. Irrelevant because it was based on features the author himself think wave will have. Features he made up, like "hundreds of people will be able to edit the same wave". Google has never said this. And it's still under development, and reviewing something that hasn't been made yet doesn't make sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , it 's like the no original research policy on Wikipedia .
If your blog post is so damn important that it deserves to be slashdotted , someone else will do it for you .
And I think the biggest problem of the criticism in the article was that it was fuzzy and irrelevant .
Irrelevant because it was based on features the author himself think wave will have .
Features he made up , like " hundreds of people will be able to edit the same wave " .
Google has never said this .
And it 's still under development , and reviewing something that has n't been made yet does n't make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, it's like the no original research policy on Wikipedia.
If your blog post is so damn important that it deserves to be slashdotted, someone else will do it for you.
And I think the biggest problem of the criticism in the article was that it was fuzzy and irrelevant.
Irrelevant because it was based on features the author himself think wave will have.
Features he made up, like "hundreds of people will be able to edit the same wave".
Google has never said this.
And it's still under development, and reviewing something that hasn't been made yet doesn't make sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169607</id>
	<title>Re:Give me THREADED multi-user chat.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1243877700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holding a coherent conversation with threads is practically impossible unless you like jumping all over the place.</p><p>People do not hold a threaded conversation.  They sometimes hold multiple conversations about different threads, but thats an entirely different beast.</p><p>We need to stop feeding this bullshit of letting people wonder all over, whereever their minds want, regardless of the focus point or task at hand.</p><p>You don't need a threaded chat client, you need to learn to focus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holding a coherent conversation with threads is practically impossible unless you like jumping all over the place.People do not hold a threaded conversation .
They sometimes hold multiple conversations about different threads , but thats an entirely different beast.We need to stop feeding this bullshit of letting people wonder all over , whereever their minds want , regardless of the focus point or task at hand.You do n't need a threaded chat client , you need to learn to focus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holding a coherent conversation with threads is practically impossible unless you like jumping all over the place.People do not hold a threaded conversation.
They sometimes hold multiple conversations about different threads, but thats an entirely different beast.We need to stop feeding this bullshit of letting people wonder all over, whereever their minds want, regardless of the focus point or task at hand.You don't need a threaded chat client, you need to learn to focus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28170009</id>
	<title>Re:Too integrated</title>
	<author>g0at</author>
	<datestamp>1243879680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Geese, I wouldn't want "What did Google do right" for the million dollar question.</p></div><p>Geese?  Google is raising birds, too?  No surprise I guess.</p><p>b</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Geese , I would n't want " What did Google do right " for the million dollar question.Geese ?
Google is raising birds , too ?
No surprise I guess.b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geese, I wouldn't want "What did Google do right" for the million dollar question.Geese?
Google is raising birds, too?
No surprise I guess.b
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168035</id>
	<title>Re:Can't See Comment Titles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243870980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Modded off-topic, sure, but Slashdot is a broken mess.  Wish they'd stop trying to be cute with their useless ajax bullshit and just fix their fucking code.  An ideal non-broken Slashdot should look and behave like <a href="http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/8872/slashdot.png" title="imageshack.us" rel="nofollow">this</a> [imageshack.us].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modded off-topic , sure , but Slashdot is a broken mess .
Wish they 'd stop trying to be cute with their useless ajax bullshit and just fix their fucking code .
An ideal non-broken Slashdot should look and behave like this [ imageshack.us ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modded off-topic, sure, but Slashdot is a broken mess.
Wish they'd stop trying to be cute with their useless ajax bullshit and just fix their fucking code.
An ideal non-broken Slashdot should look and behave like this [imageshack.us].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167919</id>
	<title>Re:Too integrated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243870500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wave holds 0 interest for me</p></div><p>I'm not all that interested in the latest Porsche. Is that because Porsches are bad cars or because I'm not in the target audience?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If there is one thing we have too much of these days is communications. At least having to use separate programs or channels slows it down just a little.</p></div><p>I agree, we use computers too often as well, at least downgrading the RAM from 2GB to 256MB slows it down just a little. And the Internet, gosh darn how I hate it, at least I can cripple it by downloading ad/spyware.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Who wants more mail, more IMs or more anything?</p></div><p>I don't want more, I want the same amount in the same unified program.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What made Google so successful was doing one thing and doing it well.</p></div><ul>
<li>Search engine</li><li>Email</li><li>Online advertising</li><li>Online documents</li><li>Mobile OS</li><li>OOS repos</li><li>Browser</li><li>$EVERYTHING\_I\_FORGOT</li><li><ul> <li><p>

Geese, I wouldn't want "What did Google do right" for the million dollar question.</p></li></ul></li></ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wave holds 0 interest for meI 'm not all that interested in the latest Porsche .
Is that because Porsches are bad cars or because I 'm not in the target audience ? If there is one thing we have too much of these days is communications .
At least having to use separate programs or channels slows it down just a little.I agree , we use computers too often as well , at least downgrading the RAM from 2GB to 256MB slows it down just a little .
And the Internet , gosh darn how I hate it , at least I can cripple it by downloading ad/spyware.Who wants more mail , more IMs or more anything ? I do n't want more , I want the same amount in the same unified program.What made Google so successful was doing one thing and doing it well .
Search engineEmailOnline advertisingOnline documentsMobile OSOOS reposBrowser $ EVERYTHING \ _I \ _FORGOT Geese , I would n't want " What did Google do right " for the million dollar question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wave holds 0 interest for meI'm not all that interested in the latest Porsche.
Is that because Porsches are bad cars or because I'm not in the target audience?If there is one thing we have too much of these days is communications.
At least having to use separate programs or channels slows it down just a little.I agree, we use computers too often as well, at least downgrading the RAM from 2GB to 256MB slows it down just a little.
And the Internet, gosh darn how I hate it, at least I can cripple it by downloading ad/spyware.Who wants more mail, more IMs or more anything?I don't want more, I want the same amount in the same unified program.What made Google so successful was doing one thing and doing it well.
Search engineEmailOnline advertisingOnline documentsMobile OSOOS reposBrowser$EVERYTHING\_I\_FORGOT 

Geese, I wouldn't want "What did Google do right" for the million dollar question.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167869</id>
	<title>Re:Please repost your article.</title>
	<author>SuperSlug</author>
	<datestamp>1243870320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Geeze FF with adblock and some half decent filters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Geeze FF with adblock and some half decent filters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geeze FF with adblock and some half decent filters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167991</id>
	<title>Waste of time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243870860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why does slashdot allow people to submit stories about their own blog posts?  It seems like that bypasses an important filter - someone else finding the story and deciding it's important.  Clearly, this story wouldn't have made it to slashdot if the author hadn't submitted it, because 90\% of it is just nitpicking at minor details of a system that hasn't even been released yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does slashdot allow people to submit stories about their own blog posts ?
It seems like that bypasses an important filter - someone else finding the story and deciding it 's important .
Clearly , this story would n't have made it to slashdot if the author had n't submitted it , because 90 \ % of it is just nitpicking at minor details of a system that has n't even been released yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does slashdot allow people to submit stories about their own blog posts?
It seems like that bypasses an important filter - someone else finding the story and deciding it's important.
Clearly, this story wouldn't have made it to slashdot if the author hadn't submitted it, because 90\% of it is just nitpicking at minor details of a system that hasn't even been released yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28182931</id>
	<title>Re:Too integrated</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1243959720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not all that interested in the latest Porsche. Is that because Porsches are bad cars or because I'm not in the target audience?</p></div><p>
Google wants wave to completely replace e-mail, meaning anyone with an e-mail address is their target audience.
</p><p>
For the comment about doing one thing right, he didn't mean <i>only</i> one thing for all of Google. It was probably the same meaning as the unix philosophy: each of those things you listed is it's own separate product, and each only does one thing. And each does that one thing well. By contrast, wave does many things, and to agree with the GP, it seems to do many things not well.
</p><p>
Like the GP, I also have little interest in wave, and I don't think it will get very far. (If I am wrong, someone from the future might link here and make me eat my words<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P)
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not all that interested in the latest Porsche .
Is that because Porsches are bad cars or because I 'm not in the target audience ?
Google wants wave to completely replace e-mail , meaning anyone with an e-mail address is their target audience .
For the comment about doing one thing right , he did n't mean only one thing for all of Google .
It was probably the same meaning as the unix philosophy : each of those things you listed is it 's own separate product , and each only does one thing .
And each does that one thing well .
By contrast , wave does many things , and to agree with the GP , it seems to do many things not well .
Like the GP , I also have little interest in wave , and I do n't think it will get very far .
( If I am wrong , someone from the future might link here and make me eat my words : -P )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not all that interested in the latest Porsche.
Is that because Porsches are bad cars or because I'm not in the target audience?
Google wants wave to completely replace e-mail, meaning anyone with an e-mail address is their target audience.
For the comment about doing one thing right, he didn't mean only one thing for all of Google.
It was probably the same meaning as the unix philosophy: each of those things you listed is it's own separate product, and each only does one thing.
And each does that one thing well.
By contrast, wave does many things, and to agree with the GP, it seems to do many things not well.
Like the GP, I also have little interest in wave, and I don't think it will get very far.
(If I am wrong, someone from the future might link here and make me eat my words :-P)

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168077</id>
	<title>Re:Too integrated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243871160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>For teams working on projects within an organization I can see this being a killer app. Keeping the documents together with the discussion of those documents is useful (I know other office type apps attempt this, but more as a hack bolted onto a word processor or something, as opposed to part of the original design as it is in Google Wave)

The question will really be adoption. Which, I imagine, is part of the reason Google is open sourcing it. If it becomes something that people find useful in a business environment, then it'll become common enough that it'll get used at home as well.

And although the 40+ crowd will likely have problems getting used to it, the upcoming generation who grew up with email, IM, online photos, facebook, etc... won't have a hard time adapting to this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For teams working on projects within an organization I can see this being a killer app .
Keeping the documents together with the discussion of those documents is useful ( I know other office type apps attempt this , but more as a hack bolted onto a word processor or something , as opposed to part of the original design as it is in Google Wave ) The question will really be adoption .
Which , I imagine , is part of the reason Google is open sourcing it .
If it becomes something that people find useful in a business environment , then it 'll become common enough that it 'll get used at home as well .
And although the 40 + crowd will likely have problems getting used to it , the upcoming generation who grew up with email , IM , online photos , facebook , etc... wo n't have a hard time adapting to this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For teams working on projects within an organization I can see this being a killer app.
Keeping the documents together with the discussion of those documents is useful (I know other office type apps attempt this, but more as a hack bolted onto a word processor or something, as opposed to part of the original design as it is in Google Wave)

The question will really be adoption.
Which, I imagine, is part of the reason Google is open sourcing it.
If it becomes something that people find useful in a business environment, then it'll become common enough that it'll get used at home as well.
And although the 40+ crowd will likely have problems getting used to it, the upcoming generation who grew up with email, IM, online photos, facebook, etc... won't have a hard time adapting to this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168643</id>
	<title>Re:Rebuttle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243873620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>* Key Stroke by Key Stroke View Could Be Annoying</p></div><p>Could be useful too. Turn it off if you don't like it. Another non-point.</p><p>Do not be so dismissive.  There is no way to turn it off.  (don't believe me? -  go check, read reviews)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* Key Stroke by Key Stroke View Could Be AnnoyingCould be useful too .
Turn it off if you do n't like it .
Another non-point.Do not be so dismissive .
There is no way to turn it off .
( do n't believe me ?
- go check , read reviews )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* Key Stroke by Key Stroke View Could Be AnnoyingCould be useful too.
Turn it off if you don't like it.
Another non-point.Do not be so dismissive.
There is no way to turn it off.
(don't believe me?
-  go check, read reviews)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167771</id>
	<title>A contender</title>
	<author>edittard</author>
	<datestamp>1243869960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This might not be the shittest story on the slashdots evaaaar, but it's certainly a contender.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This might not be the shittest story on the slashdots evaaaar , but it 's certainly a contender .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might not be the shittest story on the slashdots evaaaar, but it's certainly a contender.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168277</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth and Hosting</title>
	<author>Macka</author>
	<datestamp>1243872060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Both of these would work great in a corporate level with a WAVE server running on the LAN, but when it goes global, those servers will be smokin'</p></div> </blockquote><p>So there's something new coming along that might require a beefy server to drive it.  I can see the sales guys from {HP,IBM,Sun/Oracle} wiping the dribble off their chins already.   Would you like a SAN with that Sir?</p><p>It will be useful to know (when its released) what size of server and how much bandwidth Google recommend to support # numbers of users.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both of these would work great in a corporate level with a WAVE server running on the LAN , but when it goes global , those servers will be smokin ' So there 's something new coming along that might require a beefy server to drive it .
I can see the sales guys from { HP,IBM,Sun/Oracle } wiping the dribble off their chins already .
Would you like a SAN with that Sir ? It will be useful to know ( when its released ) what size of server and how much bandwidth Google recommend to support # numbers of users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Both of these would work great in a corporate level with a WAVE server running on the LAN, but when it goes global, those servers will be smokin' So there's something new coming along that might require a beefy server to drive it.
I can see the sales guys from {HP,IBM,Sun/Oracle} wiping the dribble off their chins already.
Would you like a SAN with that Sir?It will be useful to know (when its released) what size of server and how much bandwidth Google recommend to support # numbers of users.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169615</id>
	<title>Re:Can't See Comment Titles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243877760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know it sucks, I get the same problem; but here's a quick-and-dirty work-around:  Click the "Change" button, even without making any changes.  The page re-post will cause the titles to magically appear.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -dZ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it sucks , I get the same problem ; but here 's a quick-and-dirty work-around : Click the " Change " button , even without making any changes .
The page re-post will cause the titles to magically appear .
      -dZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know it sucks, I get the same problem; but here's a quick-and-dirty work-around:  Click the "Change" button, even without making any changes.
The page re-post will cause the titles to magically appear.
      -dZ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28170511</id>
	<title>Re:Too integrated</title>
	<author>frizop</author>
	<datestamp>1243882080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The question will really be adoption. Which, I imagine, is part of the reason Google is open sourcing it.</p></div><p>My thoughts exactly. I do wonder how they plan on making money off this. Perhaps their portal (eg: gmail) will have some target advertising? Anyway, I'm excited about this but it's years off before we have widespread adoption.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question will really be adoption .
Which , I imagine , is part of the reason Google is open sourcing it.My thoughts exactly .
I do wonder how they plan on making money off this .
Perhaps their portal ( eg : gmail ) will have some target advertising ?
Anyway , I 'm excited about this but it 's years off before we have widespread adoption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question will really be adoption.
Which, I imagine, is part of the reason Google is open sourcing it.My thoughts exactly.
I do wonder how they plan on making money off this.
Perhaps their portal (eg: gmail) will have some target advertising?
Anyway, I'm excited about this but it's years off before we have widespread adoption.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28173273</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of time</title>
	<author>Xerolooper</author>
	<datestamp>1243849380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why does slashdot allow people to submit stories about their own blog posts?  It seems like that bypasses an important filter - someone else finding the story and deciding it's important.  Clearly, this story wouldn't have made it to slashdot if the author hadn't submitted it, because 90\% of it is just nitpicking at minor details of a system that hasn't even been released yet.</p></div><p>I am kind of surprised that the story made it through. But it is not like they have a lot of choice in stories. I posted several stories myself. I later went back and found that they looked like they had been posted by a drunken baboon with a twitch after a night of freebasing. Perhaps you could contribute some yourself and see if you can improve on that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does slashdot allow people to submit stories about their own blog posts ?
It seems like that bypasses an important filter - someone else finding the story and deciding it 's important .
Clearly , this story would n't have made it to slashdot if the author had n't submitted it , because 90 \ % of it is just nitpicking at minor details of a system that has n't even been released yet.I am kind of surprised that the story made it through .
But it is not like they have a lot of choice in stories .
I posted several stories myself .
I later went back and found that they looked like they had been posted by a drunken baboon with a twitch after a night of freebasing .
Perhaps you could contribute some yourself and see if you can improve on that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does slashdot allow people to submit stories about their own blog posts?
It seems like that bypasses an important filter - someone else finding the story and deciding it's important.
Clearly, this story wouldn't have made it to slashdot if the author hadn't submitted it, because 90\% of it is just nitpicking at minor details of a system that hasn't even been released yet.I am kind of surprised that the story made it through.
But it is not like they have a lot of choice in stories.
I posted several stories myself.
I later went back and found that they looked like they had been posted by a drunken baboon with a twitch after a night of freebasing.
Perhaps you could contribute some yourself and see if you can improve on that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169509</id>
	<title>Yeah and you could distribute different parts</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1243877340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>on different servers, so to could scale to everyone on the internet and only the people who subscribed to the bit which was interesting to them would see that bit.</p><p>God, I'm too old. I'm going to go take up farming or something.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>on different servers , so to could scale to everyone on the internet and only the people who subscribed to the bit which was interesting to them would see that bit.God , I 'm too old .
I 'm going to go take up farming or something .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>on different servers, so to could scale to everyone on the internet and only the people who subscribed to the bit which was interesting to them would see that bit.God, I'm too old.
I'm going to go take up farming or something.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168033</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth and Hosting</title>
	<author>Terrasque</author>
	<datestamp>1243870980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hosting... Every email/every conversation will need to be stored on some central server, complete with any images and change history. Switching to a central location seems like a step backwards from the distributed system we have already with email.</p></div><p>Google says they'll release a production-ready open source wave server. Servers communicate using XMPP. It's decentralized, just like email.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Bandwidth. Every change, send character by character to whoever happens to have it open. That's a lot of 'real-time' bandwidth for this central location. Both of these would work great in a corporate level with a WAVE server running on the LAN, but when it goes global, those servers will be smokin'</p></div><p>Well, single characters are not exactly known to take a lot of bandwidth. Depends on encapsulation I guess..</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Especially with the concept of wave enabled blogs. If you blog hits DIGG, then the wave server will be sending out your edits to thousands of people simultaneously. I wonder what the datapath is. I'm sure Google/Blogspot has a lot of bandwidth, but when you combine all IM, EMAIL, BLOG traffic along the same pipes to a central location....</p></div><p>Now here I partially agree with you. Both bandwidth and processing might be a lot on huge waves. I just hope they made a solid enough system for it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They did say that organizations can start their own WAVE server. Sounds like it works much the same way the Jabber (XMPP?) protocol works. But still, if this catches on, I see a future of new congestion problems.</p></div><p>It might, it might not. Remember, email already do much of the same thing (but with more delay).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>On the flip side...I was very impressed by the demo...and if this catches on in a big way (and works) it could be a serious redefining of communication on the web.</p></div><p>Absolutely agree! This have the potential to gather most of our internet communication channels in one elegant interface, and will probably create a lot of new ways to communicate. Google have proved earlier that they can make high load systems, let's hope they make this one solid enough, and I really hope this replace email and IM for the majority of people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hosting... Every email/every conversation will need to be stored on some central server , complete with any images and change history .
Switching to a central location seems like a step backwards from the distributed system we have already with email.Google says they 'll release a production-ready open source wave server .
Servers communicate using XMPP .
It 's decentralized , just like email.Bandwidth .
Every change , send character by character to whoever happens to have it open .
That 's a lot of 'real-time ' bandwidth for this central location .
Both of these would work great in a corporate level with a WAVE server running on the LAN , but when it goes global , those servers will be smokin'Well , single characters are not exactly known to take a lot of bandwidth .
Depends on encapsulation I guess..Especially with the concept of wave enabled blogs .
If you blog hits DIGG , then the wave server will be sending out your edits to thousands of people simultaneously .
I wonder what the datapath is .
I 'm sure Google/Blogspot has a lot of bandwidth , but when you combine all IM , EMAIL , BLOG traffic along the same pipes to a central location....Now here I partially agree with you .
Both bandwidth and processing might be a lot on huge waves .
I just hope they made a solid enough system for it.They did say that organizations can start their own WAVE server .
Sounds like it works much the same way the Jabber ( XMPP ?
) protocol works .
But still , if this catches on , I see a future of new congestion problems.It might , it might not .
Remember , email already do much of the same thing ( but with more delay ) .On the flip side...I was very impressed by the demo...and if this catches on in a big way ( and works ) it could be a serious redefining of communication on the web.Absolutely agree !
This have the potential to gather most of our internet communication channels in one elegant interface , and will probably create a lot of new ways to communicate .
Google have proved earlier that they can make high load systems , let 's hope they make this one solid enough , and I really hope this replace email and IM for the majority of people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hosting... Every email/every conversation will need to be stored on some central server, complete with any images and change history.
Switching to a central location seems like a step backwards from the distributed system we have already with email.Google says they'll release a production-ready open source wave server.
Servers communicate using XMPP.
It's decentralized, just like email.Bandwidth.
Every change, send character by character to whoever happens to have it open.
That's a lot of 'real-time' bandwidth for this central location.
Both of these would work great in a corporate level with a WAVE server running on the LAN, but when it goes global, those servers will be smokin'Well, single characters are not exactly known to take a lot of bandwidth.
Depends on encapsulation I guess..Especially with the concept of wave enabled blogs.
If you blog hits DIGG, then the wave server will be sending out your edits to thousands of people simultaneously.
I wonder what the datapath is.
I'm sure Google/Blogspot has a lot of bandwidth, but when you combine all IM, EMAIL, BLOG traffic along the same pipes to a central location....Now here I partially agree with you.
Both bandwidth and processing might be a lot on huge waves.
I just hope they made a solid enough system for it.They did say that organizations can start their own WAVE server.
Sounds like it works much the same way the Jabber (XMPP?
) protocol works.
But still, if this catches on, I see a future of new congestion problems.It might, it might not.
Remember, email already do much of the same thing (but with more delay).On the flip side...I was very impressed by the demo...and if this catches on in a big way (and works) it could be a serious redefining of communication on the web.Absolutely agree!
This have the potential to gather most of our internet communication channels in one elegant interface, and will probably create a lot of new ways to communicate.
Google have proved earlier that they can make high load systems, let's hope they make this one solid enough, and I really hope this replace email and IM for the majority of people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167917</id>
	<title>Wave? While they ignore Gmail?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243870500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google Wave is beautiful, innovative and indeed holds great potential, I'd rather have Google get its products and especially Gmail out of beta.</p><p>How about improving Google Docs? Zoho's Writer is better and more functional in my opinion.</p><p>Back to Gmail: There are a host of features that have little attention, yet they could make the lives of users even better.</p><p>Heck....do something about Gmail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Wave is beautiful , innovative and indeed holds great potential , I 'd rather have Google get its products and especially Gmail out of beta.How about improving Google Docs ?
Zoho 's Writer is better and more functional in my opinion.Back to Gmail : There are a host of features that have little attention , yet they could make the lives of users even better.Heck....do something about Gmail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Wave is beautiful, innovative and indeed holds great potential, I'd rather have Google get its products and especially Gmail out of beta.How about improving Google Docs?
Zoho's Writer is better and more functional in my opinion.Back to Gmail: There are a host of features that have little attention, yet they could make the lives of users even better.Heck....do something about Gmail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168105</id>
	<title>Re:40 minutes</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1243871280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's so special at the end?</p><p>"They plan to make the entire protocol and the majority of their implementations open source so that anybody can install their own wave servers." - They say this at the very beginning, even before they start demoing the product.</p><p>So far I've only seen the first 15 minutes (had to go to work)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's so special at the end ?
" They plan to make the entire protocol and the majority of their implementations open source so that anybody can install their own wave servers .
" - They say this at the very beginning , even before they start demoing the product.So far I 've only seen the first 15 minutes ( had to go to work )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's so special at the end?
"They plan to make the entire protocol and the majority of their implementations open source so that anybody can install their own wave servers.
" - They say this at the very beginning, even before they start demoing the product.So far I've only seen the first 15 minutes (had to go to work)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169033</id>
	<title>Re:Wave? While they ignore Gmail?</title>
	<author>Terrasque</author>
	<datestamp>1243875300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are doing something for gmail, docs and similar. They're trying to make them obsolete<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are doing something for gmail , docs and similar .
They 're trying to make them obsolete : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are doing something for gmail, docs and similar.
They're trying to make them obsolete :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28171111</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth and Hosting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243884840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, just send your Wave to the Cloud!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , just send your Wave to the Cloud !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, just send your Wave to the Cloud!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167769</id>
	<title>40 minutes</title>
	<author>MindStalker</author>
	<datestamp>1243869960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does everyone keep saying to watch the first 40 minutes. The most exciting part and rarely mentioned in articles comes at the end. They plan to make the entire protocol and the majority of their implementations open source so that anybody can install their own wave servers. Thus it can be a full replacement for email as you can have your own corporate wave server independent from google with all the features and people on your system can send out a wave to someone on google system just as they can with corporate email.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does everyone keep saying to watch the first 40 minutes .
The most exciting part and rarely mentioned in articles comes at the end .
They plan to make the entire protocol and the majority of their implementations open source so that anybody can install their own wave servers .
Thus it can be a full replacement for email as you can have your own corporate wave server independent from google with all the features and people on your system can send out a wave to someone on google system just as they can with corporate email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does everyone keep saying to watch the first 40 minutes.
The most exciting part and rarely mentioned in articles comes at the end.
They plan to make the entire protocol and the majority of their implementations open source so that anybody can install their own wave servers.
Thus it can be a full replacement for email as you can have your own corporate wave server independent from google with all the features and people on your system can send out a wave to someone on google system just as they can with corporate email.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167679</id>
	<title>Why not ask a distributed team?</title>
	<author>davecb</author>
	<datestamp>1243869540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Samba team already use email
and IM effectively, try asking them.

</p><p>--dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Samba team already use email and IM effectively , try asking them .
--dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Samba team already use email
and IM effectively, try asking them.
--dave</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168959</id>
	<title>Re:Can't See Comment Titles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243875060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's such a problem, browse in Low Bandwidth mode with NoScript turned on. Turns into a very nice website indeed with those options.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's such a problem , browse in Low Bandwidth mode with NoScript turned on .
Turns into a very nice website indeed with those options .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's such a problem, browse in Low Bandwidth mode with NoScript turned on.
Turns into a very nice website indeed with those options.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28180393</id>
	<title>Re:Rebuttle</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1243948860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So I'm sure I'll be asked to use google wave before long -- a waste of my employers time.</p></div><p>I think I'll be asking my employer to use it. It looks very useful for discussing complex issues quickly and ending up with a clear document that everybody agrees on (rather than one person's interpretation of what was discussed, and then having to do it all over again).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 'm sure I 'll be asked to use google wave before long -- a waste of my employers time.I think I 'll be asking my employer to use it .
It looks very useful for discussing complex issues quickly and ending up with a clear document that everybody agrees on ( rather than one person 's interpretation of what was discussed , and then having to do it all over again ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I'm sure I'll be asked to use google wave before long -- a waste of my employers time.I think I'll be asking my employer to use it.
It looks very useful for discussing complex issues quickly and ending up with a clear document that everybody agrees on (rather than one person's interpretation of what was discussed, and then having to do it all over again).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169367</id>
	<title>Re:Too integrated</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1243876620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Twitter is merely popular. It will be successful if they start making giant stinking piles of money off of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Twitter is merely popular .
It will be successful if they start making giant stinking piles of money off of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Twitter is merely popular.
It will be successful if they start making giant stinking piles of money off of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168181</id>
	<title>Re:Rebuttle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243871700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>[...] in a unified interface in real time, right down to seeing individual keystrokes as you type if you wish.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm using an interface like that right now, as I... well, as I type this reply!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] in a unified interface in real time , right down to seeing individual keystrokes as you type if you wish.I 'm using an interface like that right now , as I... well , as I type this reply !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...] in a unified interface in real time, right down to seeing individual keystrokes as you type if you wish.I'm using an interface like that right now, as I... well, as I type this reply!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168357</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of time</title>
	<author>jully</author>
	<datestamp>1243872360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree. TFA is just naysaying, it says nothing that the average person couldn't think up themselves with about 30 seconds thought and is an obvious troll. Go get your publicity and ad hits somewhere else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
TFA is just naysaying , it says nothing that the average person could n't think up themselves with about 30 seconds thought and is an obvious troll .
Go get your publicity and ad hits somewhere else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
TFA is just naysaying, it says nothing that the average person couldn't think up themselves with about 30 seconds thought and is an obvious troll.
Go get your publicity and ad hits somewhere else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167571</id>
	<title>Can't See Comment Titles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243869120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Can't See Comment Titles</b> <br> <br>

Take a break from your open sores circle jerk and fix your fucking code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't See Comment Titles Take a break from your open sores circle jerk and fix your fucking code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't See Comment Titles  

Take a break from your open sores circle jerk and fix your fucking code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167539</id>
	<title>First Wave</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243869060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First Wave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First Wave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First Wave</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28182509</id>
	<title>Re:Rebuttle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243958400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gotta agree with those, my only issue is the amount of people using mail and social networking sites from public systems.  As openid gets more involved, and you can have a single sign on solution, we really need good support for one time passwords/maybe a lower access password (can do everything but change your account info for example).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Got ta agree with those , my only issue is the amount of people using mail and social networking sites from public systems .
As openid gets more involved , and you can have a single sign on solution , we really need good support for one time passwords/maybe a lower access password ( can do everything but change your account info for example ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gotta agree with those, my only issue is the amount of people using mail and social networking sites from public systems.
As openid gets more involved, and you can have a single sign on solution, we really need good support for one time passwords/maybe a lower access password (can do everything but change your account info for example).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169137</id>
	<title>Re:Rebuttle</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1243875660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole "see every character typed" amuses me massively.  The very first time I ever did anything like IRC or IM was way back in the eighties, when I chatted with friends using Apple ][+ software and 300 baud modems. The software was too primitive to do it line-by-line.  I found it interesting because more of a person's personality came through.  It seemed more like text coming from real human beings when you could see them back-space, and the characters came through in a non-regular fashion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole " see every character typed " amuses me massively .
The very first time I ever did anything like IRC or IM was way back in the eighties , when I chatted with friends using Apple ] [ + software and 300 baud modems .
The software was too primitive to do it line-by-line .
I found it interesting because more of a person 's personality came through .
It seemed more like text coming from real human beings when you could see them back-space , and the characters came through in a non-regular fashion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole "see every character typed" amuses me massively.
The very first time I ever did anything like IRC or IM was way back in the eighties, when I chatted with friends using Apple ][+ software and 300 baud modems.
The software was too primitive to do it line-by-line.
I found it interesting because more of a person's personality came through.
It seemed more like text coming from real human beings when you could see them back-space, and the characters came through in a non-regular fashion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167619</id>
	<title>Wannabe Google Tester</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243869300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dude's post reads like a wannabe Google tester that's just scratching the surface.  If they haven't thought this out or experienced them before with Google docs, they're dead in the water.  Just relax and try it out before you play the role of beta tester and say it's not going to work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude 's post reads like a wannabe Google tester that 's just scratching the surface .
If they have n't thought this out or experienced them before with Google docs , they 're dead in the water .
Just relax and try it out before you play the role of beta tester and say it 's not going to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude's post reads like a wannabe Google tester that's just scratching the surface.
If they haven't thought this out or experienced them before with Google docs, they're dead in the water.
Just relax and try it out before you play the role of beta tester and say it's not going to work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28170807</id>
	<title>Re:Too integrated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243883700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I agree, we use computers too often as well, at least downgrading the RAM from 2GB to 256MB slows it down just a little. And the Internet, gosh darn how I hate it, at least I can cripple it by downloading ad/spyware.</p></div><p>Not everyone is so lucky you insensitive clod. I cannot even get decent malware for my Linux box these days.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , we use computers too often as well , at least downgrading the RAM from 2GB to 256MB slows it down just a little .
And the Internet , gosh darn how I hate it , at least I can cripple it by downloading ad/spyware.Not everyone is so lucky you insensitive clod .
I can not even get decent malware for my Linux box these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, we use computers too often as well, at least downgrading the RAM from 2GB to 256MB slows it down just a little.
And the Internet, gosh darn how I hate it, at least I can cripple it by downloading ad/spyware.Not everyone is so lucky you insensitive clod.
I cannot even get decent malware for my Linux box these days.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28180909</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of time</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1243951920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why does slashdot allow people to submit stories about their own blog posts?</p></div><p>So we can ridicule them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does slashdot allow people to submit stories about their own blog posts ? So we can ridicule them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does slashdot allow people to submit stories about their own blog posts?So we can ridicule them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731</id>
	<title>Too integrated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243869840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems every company seeks the holy grail of integrated software.  One interface to do everything and time and again the general public ignores these "advances" (anyone remember GEOS?)</p><p>Why?  Let's look at the latest massively successful "product", Twitter.  Summary of twitter: Send 140 Characters to the world.  Wow.  Stunningly complex (from the user's perspective), huh?</p><p>What made Google so successful was doing one thing and doing it well.  Wave holds 0 interest for me (disclaimer: neither does twitter but at least I get it). Another integrated communication method to take all my avenues of communication and point it to one.  Oof.  Sorry.  If there is one thing we have too much of these days is communications.  At least having to use separate programs or channels slows it down just a little.  Who wants more mail, more IMs or more anything?</p><p>-Joe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems every company seeks the holy grail of integrated software .
One interface to do everything and time and again the general public ignores these " advances " ( anyone remember GEOS ? ) Why ?
Let 's look at the latest massively successful " product " , Twitter .
Summary of twitter : Send 140 Characters to the world .
Wow. Stunningly complex ( from the user 's perspective ) , huh ? What made Google so successful was doing one thing and doing it well .
Wave holds 0 interest for me ( disclaimer : neither does twitter but at least I get it ) .
Another integrated communication method to take all my avenues of communication and point it to one .
Oof. Sorry .
If there is one thing we have too much of these days is communications .
At least having to use separate programs or channels slows it down just a little .
Who wants more mail , more IMs or more anything ? -Joe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems every company seeks the holy grail of integrated software.
One interface to do everything and time and again the general public ignores these "advances" (anyone remember GEOS?)Why?
Let's look at the latest massively successful "product", Twitter.
Summary of twitter: Send 140 Characters to the world.
Wow.  Stunningly complex (from the user's perspective), huh?What made Google so successful was doing one thing and doing it well.
Wave holds 0 interest for me (disclaimer: neither does twitter but at least I get it).
Another integrated communication method to take all my avenues of communication and point it to one.
Oof.  Sorry.
If there is one thing we have too much of these days is communications.
At least having to use separate programs or channels slows it down just a little.
Who wants more mail, more IMs or more anything?-Joe</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28173189</id>
	<title>Re:Real Time Conversation Tool</title>
	<author>AigariusDebian</author>
	<datestamp>1243849080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you have a record of that? Do you have a detailed and exact transcript of who said what? Can you search it for keywords? Do you have an exact set of changes each participant proposed to the document we discussed? Can you get the final document will all discussed and accepted changes in 5-10 seconds? Can someone who was not at the meeting later on see what was discussed, who proposed what and why? Can you point it out on a map? Could you translate it to French, Japanese and Russian, in real time?</p><p>Google Wave can do all that. You phone conversation can not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have a record of that ?
Do you have a detailed and exact transcript of who said what ?
Can you search it for keywords ?
Do you have an exact set of changes each participant proposed to the document we discussed ?
Can you get the final document will all discussed and accepted changes in 5-10 seconds ?
Can someone who was not at the meeting later on see what was discussed , who proposed what and why ?
Can you point it out on a map ?
Could you translate it to French , Japanese and Russian , in real time ? Google Wave can do all that .
You phone conversation can not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have a record of that?
Do you have a detailed and exact transcript of who said what?
Can you search it for keywords?
Do you have an exact set of changes each participant proposed to the document we discussed?
Can you get the final document will all discussed and accepted changes in 5-10 seconds?
Can someone who was not at the meeting later on see what was discussed, who proposed what and why?
Can you point it out on a map?
Could you translate it to French, Japanese and Russian, in real time?Google Wave can do all that.
You phone conversation can not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168209</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243871820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why does slashdot allow people to submit stories about their own blog posts?</p> </div><p>Are you familiar with the Firehose?  It's just how it works, don't complain about options, etc..  Clearly, someone thought this was interesting enough to get modded up to a level where The Editors noticed it and thought it was worthy (or, in this case, might incite enough bloodshed to become amusing).</p><p>...or, with even more cynicism:</p><p>

1) submit ad-laden story to Slashdot<br>
2) submit kick-back to editors<br>
3) Profit!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does slashdot allow people to submit stories about their own blog posts ?
Are you familiar with the Firehose ?
It 's just how it works , do n't complain about options , etc.. Clearly , someone thought this was interesting enough to get modded up to a level where The Editors noticed it and thought it was worthy ( or , in this case , might incite enough bloodshed to become amusing ) ....or , with even more cynicism : 1 ) submit ad-laden story to Slashdot 2 ) submit kick-back to editors 3 ) Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does slashdot allow people to submit stories about their own blog posts?
Are you familiar with the Firehose?
It's just how it works, don't complain about options, etc..  Clearly, someone thought this was interesting enough to get modded up to a level where The Editors noticed it and thought it was worthy (or, in this case, might incite enough bloodshed to become amusing)....or, with even more cynicism:

1) submit ad-laden story to Slashdot
2) submit kick-back to editors
3) Profit!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168859</id>
	<title>Re:40 minutes</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1243874640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They could have done that more cooperatively : they already use the Jabber protocol for gTalk but incompletely implement it. They could have use it instead of designing a new one to make exactly the same thing. But Ok, I guess it is better than having a closed-source implementation. Note however that they "plan" to make the entire thing open source. I'll wait for the possibility to set up a wave server that is not hosted in mountainview before getting interested in this "revolutionnary" technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They could have done that more cooperatively : they already use the Jabber protocol for gTalk but incompletely implement it .
They could have use it instead of designing a new one to make exactly the same thing .
But Ok , I guess it is better than having a closed-source implementation .
Note however that they " plan " to make the entire thing open source .
I 'll wait for the possibility to set up a wave server that is not hosted in mountainview before getting interested in this " revolutionnary " technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could have done that more cooperatively : they already use the Jabber protocol for gTalk but incompletely implement it.
They could have use it instead of designing a new one to make exactly the same thing.
But Ok, I guess it is better than having a closed-source implementation.
Note however that they "plan" to make the entire thing open source.
I'll wait for the possibility to set up a wave server that is not hosted in mountainview before getting interested in this "revolutionnary" technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168981</id>
	<title>Re:What about spam?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243875180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to what I've read they haven't been thinking too hard on that yet, but the protocol says that all messages need to be cryptologically verifiable from a user on a server. That alone will hopefully make spam less of an issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to what I 've read they have n't been thinking too hard on that yet , but the protocol says that all messages need to be cryptologically verifiable from a user on a server .
That alone will hopefully make spam less of an issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to what I've read they haven't been thinking too hard on that yet, but the protocol says that all messages need to be cryptologically verifiable from a user on a server.
That alone will hopefully make spam less of an issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167983</id>
	<title>Real Time Conversation Tool</title>
	<author>rshol</author>
	<datestamp>1243870800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We already have a ubiquitous, real time conversation tool that allows us to communicate simultaneously with multiple people in a "team".  We can use it just about anywhere, any time and get to just about anybody.  Its called a phone, its already in your pocket.

I am amazed by my 19 year old college student son.  I ask him, "Did you talk to ?"  The answer is always that he had an extended conversation, but it was by text or FaceBook.  What gives?  I find you can accomplish more, in a more nuanced manner, in a 2 minute phone conversation, than in 20 minutes of texting, emailing or waveing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We already have a ubiquitous , real time conversation tool that allows us to communicate simultaneously with multiple people in a " team " .
We can use it just about anywhere , any time and get to just about anybody .
Its called a phone , its already in your pocket .
I am amazed by my 19 year old college student son .
I ask him , " Did you talk to ?
" The answer is always that he had an extended conversation , but it was by text or FaceBook .
What gives ?
I find you can accomplish more , in a more nuanced manner , in a 2 minute phone conversation , than in 20 minutes of texting , emailing or waveing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already have a ubiquitous, real time conversation tool that allows us to communicate simultaneously with multiple people in a "team".
We can use it just about anywhere, any time and get to just about anybody.
Its called a phone, its already in your pocket.
I am amazed by my 19 year old college student son.
I ask him, "Did you talk to ?
"  The answer is always that he had an extended conversation, but it was by text or FaceBook.
What gives?
I find you can accomplish more, in a more nuanced manner, in a 2 minute phone conversation, than in 20 minutes of texting, emailing or waveing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169005</id>
	<title>Re:Too integrated</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1243875240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make some good points, but don't forget the <i>other</i> lesson of the dot-com boom - even an unoriginal, unremarkable, unsustainable, stupid, worthless idea can make you a shitload of money if you embrace it early and don't get too greedy to get out before it explodes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make some good points , but do n't forget the other lesson of the dot-com boom - even an unoriginal , unremarkable , unsustainable , stupid , worthless idea can make you a shitload of money if you embrace it early and do n't get too greedy to get out before it explodes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make some good points, but don't forget the other lesson of the dot-com boom - even an unoriginal, unremarkable, unsustainable, stupid, worthless idea can make you a shitload of money if you embrace it early and don't get too greedy to get out before it explodes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167875</id>
	<title>Re:Too integrated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243870320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Strongly disagree. Wave is not 'another integrated communication method'. It is simply email successor. Everyone using email is going to be a wave user. At least in the simple way of 'email++'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Strongly disagree .
Wave is not 'another integrated communication method' .
It is simply email successor .
Everyone using email is going to be a wave user .
At least in the simple way of 'email + + ' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strongly disagree.
Wave is not 'another integrated communication method'.
It is simply email successor.
Everyone using email is going to be a wave user.
At least in the simple way of 'email++'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167789</id>
	<title>What about spam?</title>
	<author>Etylowy</author>
	<datestamp>1243870020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I am really concerned about is SPAM.<br>Real time bayesian filtering? Not really. And that's the most common solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I am really concerned about is SPAM.Real time bayesian filtering ?
Not really .
And that 's the most common solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I am really concerned about is SPAM.Real time bayesian filtering?
Not really.
And that's the most common solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28170609</id>
	<title>Re:What about spam?</title>
	<author>D Ninja</author>
	<datestamp>1243882620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I saw of the presentation, I don't know if spam would even be an issue.  It looks like individuals need to be invited to a wave before they can ever post to it.  (Of course, if you're talking about wave invites, then, yes...that would need to be solved.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I saw of the presentation , I do n't know if spam would even be an issue .
It looks like individuals need to be invited to a wave before they can ever post to it .
( Of course , if you 're talking about wave invites , then , yes...that would need to be solved .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I saw of the presentation, I don't know if spam would even be an issue.
It looks like individuals need to be invited to a wave before they can ever post to it.
(Of course, if you're talking about wave invites, then, yes...that would need to be solved.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168049</id>
	<title>Re:Please repost your article.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243871040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My solution:<br>1) Click on printable view<br>2) Immediately copy/paste into notepad<br>3) ???<br>4) Profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My solution : 1 ) Click on printable view2 ) Immediately copy/paste into notepad3 ) ? ?
? 4 ) Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My solution:1) Click on printable view2) Immediately copy/paste into notepad3) ??
?4) Profit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28170259</id>
	<title>Re:What about spam?</title>
	<author>mounthood</author>
	<datestamp>1243881000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you send SPAM the message is transmitted to the remote server (your server gets a copy of the content), but in the video they specifically said that a person in a 2nd company excluded from a sub-conversation would never be able to access the content... which I took to mean that the content sits on the originators server, and maybe cached on the remote server if accessed. </p><p>This is really different then the current challenge of SPAM. If you're invited to a Wave, the spammers need to have a quasi-permanent Wave server running (like having a web server running to server content) and your Wave server would only recieve the invitation. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you send SPAM the message is transmitted to the remote server ( your server gets a copy of the content ) , but in the video they specifically said that a person in a 2nd company excluded from a sub-conversation would never be able to access the content... which I took to mean that the content sits on the originators server , and maybe cached on the remote server if accessed .
This is really different then the current challenge of SPAM .
If you 're invited to a Wave , the spammers need to have a quasi-permanent Wave server running ( like having a web server running to server content ) and your Wave server would only recieve the invitation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you send SPAM the message is transmitted to the remote server (your server gets a copy of the content), but in the video they specifically said that a person in a 2nd company excluded from a sub-conversation would never be able to access the content... which I took to mean that the content sits on the originators server, and maybe cached on the remote server if accessed.
This is really different then the current challenge of SPAM.
If you're invited to a Wave, the spammers need to have a quasi-permanent Wave server running (like having a web server running to server content) and your Wave server would only recieve the invitation. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169247</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth and Hosting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243876140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They did say that organizations can start their own WAVE server.  Sounds like it works much the same way the Jabber (XMPP?) protocol works.   But still,  if this catches on, I see a future of new congestion problems.</p></div><p>It is XMPP Extension. http://www.waveprotocol.org/draft-protocol-spec</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They did say that organizations can start their own WAVE server .
Sounds like it works much the same way the Jabber ( XMPP ?
) protocol works .
But still , if this catches on , I see a future of new congestion problems.It is XMPP Extension .
http : //www.waveprotocol.org/draft-protocol-spec</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did say that organizations can start their own WAVE server.
Sounds like it works much the same way the Jabber (XMPP?
) protocol works.
But still,  if this catches on, I see a future of new congestion problems.It is XMPP Extension.
http://www.waveprotocol.org/draft-protocol-spec
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169561</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth and Hosting</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1243877580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only extra bandwidth from character by character is packet overhead, you're transmitting the individual characters regardless.</p><p>For reference it doesn't work 'the same way as the jabber protocol works',  IT IS XMPP.  They aren't really doing anything new, they aren't the first to make software such as this, and its already been done on top of XMPP.</p><p>If you're impressed with the demo, you'd probably also be impressed if you saw an Exchange demo and weren't aware of the fact that you were using Exchange.  Demos are never impressive unless you think that theory and practice are one and the same, which they are in theory, but never in practice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only extra bandwidth from character by character is packet overhead , you 're transmitting the individual characters regardless.For reference it does n't work 'the same way as the jabber protocol works ' , IT IS XMPP .
They are n't really doing anything new , they are n't the first to make software such as this , and its already been done on top of XMPP.If you 're impressed with the demo , you 'd probably also be impressed if you saw an Exchange demo and were n't aware of the fact that you were using Exchange .
Demos are never impressive unless you think that theory and practice are one and the same , which they are in theory , but never in practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only extra bandwidth from character by character is packet overhead, you're transmitting the individual characters regardless.For reference it doesn't work 'the same way as the jabber protocol works',  IT IS XMPP.
They aren't really doing anything new, they aren't the first to make software such as this, and its already been done on top of XMPP.If you're impressed with the demo, you'd probably also be impressed if you saw an Exchange demo and weren't aware of the fact that you were using Exchange.
Demos are never impressive unless you think that theory and practice are one and the same, which they are in theory, but never in practice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167589</id>
	<title>What I'm Worried About...</title>
	<author>Smidge207</author>
	<datestamp>1243869180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Conversations are known as Waves, but the demo included just three people. What happens when you are on team with 15 or 20 people or on a mailing list with 200 people? Won't it get crowded and out of control fairly quickly? Won't the interface itself overwhelm those of us who have trouble processing too much information in a single view. It will surely please some people, but I can see it getting overcrowded and noisy in a hurry. It will definitely need well designed filtering controls to avoid this problem.</i></p><p>"Dear Google Apps,</p><p>Sorry for being such a gigantic, insecure shitlord and sending you gimmicky Google app shit twice a year for no damn reason. As a token of the sincerity of my apology, here are pictures of me killing myself by ingesting metal scraps. It was extremely painful. I hope you will remember me in death as the attention-whoring sycophant I am, and tell your children about the dangers of mercury poisoning.</p><p>May God bless you and keep you in His heart and in yours!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Conversations are known as Waves , but the demo included just three people .
What happens when you are on team with 15 or 20 people or on a mailing list with 200 people ?
Wo n't it get crowded and out of control fairly quickly ?
Wo n't the interface itself overwhelm those of us who have trouble processing too much information in a single view .
It will surely please some people , but I can see it getting overcrowded and noisy in a hurry .
It will definitely need well designed filtering controls to avoid this problem .
" Dear Google Apps,Sorry for being such a gigantic , insecure shitlord and sending you gimmicky Google app shit twice a year for no damn reason .
As a token of the sincerity of my apology , here are pictures of me killing myself by ingesting metal scraps .
It was extremely painful .
I hope you will remember me in death as the attention-whoring sycophant I am , and tell your children about the dangers of mercury poisoning.May God bless you and keep you in His heart and in yours !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conversations are known as Waves, but the demo included just three people.
What happens when you are on team with 15 or 20 people or on a mailing list with 200 people?
Won't it get crowded and out of control fairly quickly?
Won't the interface itself overwhelm those of us who have trouble processing too much information in a single view.
It will surely please some people, but I can see it getting overcrowded and noisy in a hurry.
It will definitely need well designed filtering controls to avoid this problem.
"Dear Google Apps,Sorry for being such a gigantic, insecure shitlord and sending you gimmicky Google app shit twice a year for no damn reason.
As a token of the sincerity of my apology, here are pictures of me killing myself by ingesting metal scraps.
It was extremely painful.
I hope you will remember me in death as the attention-whoring sycophant I am, and tell your children about the dangers of mercury poisoning.May God bless you and keep you in His heart and in yours!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168651</id>
	<title>Re:Rebuttle?!?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243873680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm, just curious, what does being a <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/buttle" title="wiktionary.org" rel="nofollow">butler</a> [wiktionary.org] again have to do with this article or the body of your post?</p><p>And how exactly does one re-buttle?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , just curious , what does being a butler [ wiktionary.org ] again have to do with this article or the body of your post ? And how exactly does one re-buttle ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, just curious, what does being a butler [wiktionary.org] again have to do with this article or the body of your post?And how exactly does one re-buttle?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168597</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth and Hosting</title>
	<author>patro</author>
	<datestamp>1243873440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hosting...  Every email/every conversation will need to be stored on some central server, complete with any images and change history.   Switching to a central location seems like a step backwards from the distributed system we have already with email.</p></div><p>Well, email is also stored centrally on providers' servers (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) which can talk to each other.</p><p>It is the same with wave: anyone can run a wave server and these servers can talk to each other.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hosting... Every email/every conversation will need to be stored on some central server , complete with any images and change history .
Switching to a central location seems like a step backwards from the distributed system we have already with email.Well , email is also stored centrally on providers ' servers ( Gmail , Yahoo , etc .
) which can talk to each other.It is the same with wave : anyone can run a wave server and these servers can talk to each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hosting...  Every email/every conversation will need to be stored on some central server, complete with any images and change history.
Switching to a central location seems like a step backwards from the distributed system we have already with email.Well, email is also stored centrally on providers' servers (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.
) which can talk to each other.It is the same with wave: anyone can run a wave server and these servers can talk to each other.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28177189</id>
	<title>Re:Can't See Comment Titles</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1243872240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Click the "Change" button, even without making any changes. The page re-post will cause the titles to magically appear.</i> <br> <br>Hey, thanks for that - I was beninning to think it was just me having borked something...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-}</htmltext>
<tokenext>Click the " Change " button , even without making any changes .
The page re-post will cause the titles to magically appear .
Hey , thanks for that - I was beninning to think it was just me having borked something... : - }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Click the "Change" button, even without making any changes.
The page re-post will cause the titles to magically appear.
Hey, thanks for that - I was beninning to think it was just me having borked something... :-}</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168755</id>
	<title>Re:Too integrated</title>
	<author>gun26</author>
	<datestamp>1243874160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the integration and interface complexity pitch this more toward corporate users and other organized groups who want to brainstorm and develop policies together. There is growing dissatisfaction with the amount of employee time that is sucked away by email. This could make in-house discussions much more effective. For individuals I think this is a better replacement for things like message boards and email lists.</p><p>Maybe the best thing Wave has going for it it the openness and extensibility. If it does turn out to be a game changer, the change will come from outside developers who will use it in ways its inventors hadn't thought of. Twitter is simple, yes, but that simplicity limits the blue-sky possibilities compared to Wave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the integration and interface complexity pitch this more toward corporate users and other organized groups who want to brainstorm and develop policies together .
There is growing dissatisfaction with the amount of employee time that is sucked away by email .
This could make in-house discussions much more effective .
For individuals I think this is a better replacement for things like message boards and email lists.Maybe the best thing Wave has going for it it the openness and extensibility .
If it does turn out to be a game changer , the change will come from outside developers who will use it in ways its inventors had n't thought of .
Twitter is simple , yes , but that simplicity limits the blue-sky possibilities compared to Wave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the integration and interface complexity pitch this more toward corporate users and other organized groups who want to brainstorm and develop policies together.
There is growing dissatisfaction with the amount of employee time that is sucked away by email.
This could make in-house discussions much more effective.
For individuals I think this is a better replacement for things like message boards and email lists.Maybe the best thing Wave has going for it it the openness and extensibility.
If it does turn out to be a game changer, the change will come from outside developers who will use it in ways its inventors hadn't thought of.
Twitter is simple, yes, but that simplicity limits the blue-sky possibilities compared to Wave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167959</id>
	<title>Re:Too integrated</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1243870680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> If there is one thing we have too much of these days is communications. </p></div><p>Clearly you don't see the dream behind every ICT

Instant messaging services, ERC, even email were a complex thought at one point. Signing into a server with an alias, reading and sending messages. Low and behold they caught on. And this is no different, its comprised of the same 2 activities, sending and recieving data, except this time, you don't need to sign into your MSN Messenger to check your hotmail to get the email confirmation for the forum registration password!

The question as to "Who wants more anything?" :

A Vast Majority.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there is one thing we have too much of these days is communications .
Clearly you do n't see the dream behind every ICT Instant messaging services , ERC , even email were a complex thought at one point .
Signing into a server with an alias , reading and sending messages .
Low and behold they caught on .
And this is no different , its comprised of the same 2 activities , sending and recieving data , except this time , you do n't need to sign into your MSN Messenger to check your hotmail to get the email confirmation for the forum registration password !
The question as to " Who wants more anything ?
" : A Vast Majority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If there is one thing we have too much of these days is communications.
Clearly you don't see the dream behind every ICT

Instant messaging services, ERC, even email were a complex thought at one point.
Signing into a server with an alias, reading and sending messages.
Low and behold they caught on.
And this is no different, its comprised of the same 2 activities, sending and recieving data, except this time, you don't need to sign into your MSN Messenger to check your hotmail to get the email confirmation for the forum registration password!
The question as to "Who wants more anything?
" :

A Vast Majority.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28171045</id>
	<title>Re:Rebuttle</title>
	<author>Rary</author>
	<datestamp>1243884600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>* Key Stroke by Key Stroke View Could Be Annoying</p></div><p>Could be useful too. Turn it off if you don't like it. Another non-point.</p></div><p>Reading this point, I wondered what the guy does in meetings. You know, the real world kind of meetings, where a bunch of people are sitting in a room together, talking. Because, you see, when you speak in a meeting, the other attendees hear each word in real time. There is no backspace key.</p><p>The only potentially good point he made was at the very end, which is basically that nobody's really looking for an alternative to IM/email.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* Key Stroke by Key Stroke View Could Be AnnoyingCould be useful too .
Turn it off if you do n't like it .
Another non-point.Reading this point , I wondered what the guy does in meetings .
You know , the real world kind of meetings , where a bunch of people are sitting in a room together , talking .
Because , you see , when you speak in a meeting , the other attendees hear each word in real time .
There is no backspace key.The only potentially good point he made was at the very end , which is basically that nobody 's really looking for an alternative to IM/email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* Key Stroke by Key Stroke View Could Be AnnoyingCould be useful too.
Turn it off if you don't like it.
Another non-point.Reading this point, I wondered what the guy does in meetings.
You know, the real world kind of meetings, where a bunch of people are sitting in a room together, talking.
Because, you see, when you speak in a meeting, the other attendees hear each word in real time.
There is no backspace key.The only potentially good point he made was at the very end, which is basically that nobody's really looking for an alternative to IM/email.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28172625</id>
	<title>Re:Rebuttle</title>
	<author>gilgongo</author>
	<datestamp>1243846920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who has ever used <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ntalk" title="wikipedia.org">*NIX ntalk</a> [wikipedia.org] will know that it's as silly and distracting as all hell to see something being typed out in real time, and even more so when your interlocutor is eating pizza.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who has ever used * NIX ntalk [ wikipedia.org ] will know that it 's as silly and distracting as all hell to see something being typed out in real time , and even more so when your interlocutor is eating pizza .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who has ever used *NIX ntalk [wikipedia.org] will know that it's as silly and distracting as all hell to see something being typed out in real time, and even more so when your interlocutor is eating pizza.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28171817</id>
	<title>Re:Too integrated</title>
	<author>plurgid</author>
	<datestamp>1243887240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Goddamn right I remember GEOS!</p><p>It was a low budget mac os that you could run on your C-64, man<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... there was absolutely nothing like it *at all* at the time, and it remains, in my mind, an incredible feat of software engineering.</p><p>What the hell has this to do with debunking wave, or "one integrated interface for everything", I do not know. I guess GEOS had a paint program<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and a word processing program, and some other programs, and they all used the same GUI toolkit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if that's what you mean. But then so just about everything these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goddamn right I remember GEOS ! It was a low budget mac os that you could run on your C-64 , man ... there was absolutely nothing like it * at all * at the time , and it remains , in my mind , an incredible feat of software engineering.What the hell has this to do with debunking wave , or " one integrated interface for everything " , I do not know .
I guess GEOS had a paint program ... and a word processing program , and some other programs , and they all used the same GUI toolkit ... if that 's what you mean .
But then so just about everything these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goddamn right I remember GEOS!It was a low budget mac os that you could run on your C-64, man ... there was absolutely nothing like it *at all* at the time, and it remains, in my mind, an incredible feat of software engineering.What the hell has this to do with debunking wave, or "one integrated interface for everything", I do not know.
I guess GEOS had a paint program ... and a word processing program, and some other programs, and they all used the same GUI toolkit ... if that's what you mean.
But then so just about everything these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167621</id>
	<title>Rebuttle</title>
	<author>Norsefire</author>
	<datestamp>1243869300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>* What happens when you have conversation with more than say five people.</p></div><p>It becomes harder to manage, just like an IRC, IM or real-life conversation with more than 5 people. It gets noisy, confusing and you will probably miss quite a bit. Wave isn't magic, it will have limitations just like anything else does. Or perhaps I am wrong and it will have tools to manage this, either way it's a non-point.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>* Key Stroke by Key Stroke View Could Be Annoying</p></div><p>Could be useful too. Turn it off if you don't like it. Another non-point.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>* Editing Ability Could Get Out of Control</p></div><p>There is a history bar. Presumably there will be a history tab/page. What exactly do you want from Wave? Something that allow the entire playerbase of WoW to interact in a single document or something to allow collaberation between 1-20 people working on a FOSS project, or in a business?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>* Too Complicated for the Masses</p></div><p>Email is too complicated for the masses. The Internet is too complicated for the masses. The ones that picked up email and internet will pick up Wave, if they have to.<br> <br>

Essentially, this "look at Wave" made me remember <a href="http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/1/14/" title="penny-arcade.com">this comic</a> [penny-arcade.com] (the bottom one).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* What happens when you have conversation with more than say five people.It becomes harder to manage , just like an IRC , IM or real-life conversation with more than 5 people .
It gets noisy , confusing and you will probably miss quite a bit .
Wave is n't magic , it will have limitations just like anything else does .
Or perhaps I am wrong and it will have tools to manage this , either way it 's a non-point .
* Key Stroke by Key Stroke View Could Be AnnoyingCould be useful too .
Turn it off if you do n't like it .
Another non-point .
* Editing Ability Could Get Out of ControlThere is a history bar .
Presumably there will be a history tab/page .
What exactly do you want from Wave ?
Something that allow the entire playerbase of WoW to interact in a single document or something to allow collaberation between 1-20 people working on a FOSS project , or in a business ?
* Too Complicated for the MassesEmail is too complicated for the masses .
The Internet is too complicated for the masses .
The ones that picked up email and internet will pick up Wave , if they have to .
Essentially , this " look at Wave " made me remember this comic [ penny-arcade.com ] ( the bottom one ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* What happens when you have conversation with more than say five people.It becomes harder to manage, just like an IRC, IM or real-life conversation with more than 5 people.
It gets noisy, confusing and you will probably miss quite a bit.
Wave isn't magic, it will have limitations just like anything else does.
Or perhaps I am wrong and it will have tools to manage this, either way it's a non-point.
* Key Stroke by Key Stroke View Could Be AnnoyingCould be useful too.
Turn it off if you don't like it.
Another non-point.
* Editing Ability Could Get Out of ControlThere is a history bar.
Presumably there will be a history tab/page.
What exactly do you want from Wave?
Something that allow the entire playerbase of WoW to interact in a single document or something to allow collaberation between 1-20 people working on a FOSS project, or in a business?
* Too Complicated for the MassesEmail is too complicated for the masses.
The Internet is too complicated for the masses.
The ones that picked up email and internet will pick up Wave, if they have to.
Essentially, this "look at Wave" made me remember this comic [penny-arcade.com] (the bottom one).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28180715</id>
	<title>Re:Too integrated</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1243950780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My thoughts exactly. I do wonder how they plan on making money off this.</p></div><p>I always wonder how they plan to make money of anything (search, gmail, maps, earth, sponsoring open source), yet they always manage to do it. It'll be the same here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My thoughts exactly .
I do wonder how they plan on making money off this.I always wonder how they plan to make money of anything ( search , gmail , maps , earth , sponsoring open source ) , yet they always manage to do it .
It 'll be the same here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My thoughts exactly.
I do wonder how they plan on making money off this.I always wonder how they plan to make money of anything (search, gmail, maps, earth, sponsoring open source), yet they always manage to do it.
It'll be the same here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28170511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28174367</id>
	<title>Re:40 minutes</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1243853280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, if you can't even be bothered to watch <b>one</b> presentation, I really don't think you've got a right to review it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , if you ca n't even be bothered to watch one presentation , I really do n't think you 've got a right to review it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, if you can't even be bothered to watch one presentation, I really don't think you've got a right to review it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167587</id>
	<title>um  why is the top bar red?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243869120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dumb and non topical I know but all the title bars on the articles are blue except this one which is red.  What's up with that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dumb and non topical I know but all the title bars on the articles are blue except this one which is red .
What 's up with that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dumb and non topical I know but all the title bars on the articles are blue except this one which is red.
What's up with that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168037</id>
	<title>Re:Please repost your article.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243871040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Had no problem viewing that site without the rollovers on my <a href="http://opera.com/" title="opera.com" rel="nofollow">browser</a> [opera.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Had no problem viewing that site without the rollovers on my browser [ opera.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had no problem viewing that site without the rollovers on my browser [opera.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168085</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth and Hosting</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1243871160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hosting... Every email/every conversation will need to be stored on some central server, complete with any images and change history. Switching to a central location seems like a step backwards from the distributed system we have already with email.</p></div><p>I don't see the difference. Right now we use e-mail servers to centrally manage e-mail and they interact with other e-mail servers. Wave works the same way. Jabber works the same way. Wave just consolidates the two and adds some more features in.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Bandwidth. Every change, send character by character to whoever happens to have it open. That's a lot of 'real-time' bandwidth for this central location.</p></div><p>It's not so different from chat servers today. With the move towards video and audio chat, this will be the least of the real time bandwidth issue.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Especially with the concept of wave enabled blogs. If you blog hits DIGG, then the wave server will be sending out your edits to thousands of people simultaneously.</p></div><p>For most blogs this is more like sending it to your grandmother immediately. There are a few really popular blogs, but that's a niche issue.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I just wonder about the scalability of the hosting solution.</p></div><p>It's not so different from e-mail. The protocols are open and there is an OSS reference so the market should take care of the problem if it arises.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They did say that organizations can start their own WAVE server. Sounds like it works much the same way the Jabber (XMPP?) protocol works.</p></div><p>I believe it actually uses an extended version of XMPP.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hosting... Every email/every conversation will need to be stored on some central server , complete with any images and change history .
Switching to a central location seems like a step backwards from the distributed system we have already with email.I do n't see the difference .
Right now we use e-mail servers to centrally manage e-mail and they interact with other e-mail servers .
Wave works the same way .
Jabber works the same way .
Wave just consolidates the two and adds some more features in.Bandwidth .
Every change , send character by character to whoever happens to have it open .
That 's a lot of 'real-time ' bandwidth for this central location.It 's not so different from chat servers today .
With the move towards video and audio chat , this will be the least of the real time bandwidth issue.Especially with the concept of wave enabled blogs .
If you blog hits DIGG , then the wave server will be sending out your edits to thousands of people simultaneously.For most blogs this is more like sending it to your grandmother immediately .
There are a few really popular blogs , but that 's a niche issue.I just wonder about the scalability of the hosting solution.It 's not so different from e-mail .
The protocols are open and there is an OSS reference so the market should take care of the problem if it arises.They did say that organizations can start their own WAVE server .
Sounds like it works much the same way the Jabber ( XMPP ?
) protocol works.I believe it actually uses an extended version of XMPP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hosting... Every email/every conversation will need to be stored on some central server, complete with any images and change history.
Switching to a central location seems like a step backwards from the distributed system we have already with email.I don't see the difference.
Right now we use e-mail servers to centrally manage e-mail and they interact with other e-mail servers.
Wave works the same way.
Jabber works the same way.
Wave just consolidates the two and adds some more features in.Bandwidth.
Every change, send character by character to whoever happens to have it open.
That's a lot of 'real-time' bandwidth for this central location.It's not so different from chat servers today.
With the move towards video and audio chat, this will be the least of the real time bandwidth issue.Especially with the concept of wave enabled blogs.
If you blog hits DIGG, then the wave server will be sending out your edits to thousands of people simultaneously.For most blogs this is more like sending it to your grandmother immediately.
There are a few really popular blogs, but that's a niche issue.I just wonder about the scalability of the hosting solution.It's not so different from e-mail.
The protocols are open and there is an OSS reference so the market should take care of the problem if it arises.They did say that organizations can start their own WAVE server.
Sounds like it works much the same way the Jabber (XMPP?
) protocol works.I believe it actually uses an extended version of XMPP.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28174917</id>
	<title>Re:What about spam?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243855680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah I had the same fear, but I looked it up in the protocol. every message/change is actually signed with the usual dns certificate systems. This means:</p><p>a) No zombies for spamming, since they don't have certificates, and buying one for each is very expensive. (buying one to share is too easy to block)<br>b) Assuming the certificate authorities do their job you can actually find the person behind the spam a lot easier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah I had the same fear , but I looked it up in the protocol .
every message/change is actually signed with the usual dns certificate systems .
This means : a ) No zombies for spamming , since they do n't have certificates , and buying one for each is very expensive .
( buying one to share is too easy to block ) b ) Assuming the certificate authorities do their job you can actually find the person behind the spam a lot easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah I had the same fear, but I looked it up in the protocol.
every message/change is actually signed with the usual dns certificate systems.
This means:a) No zombies for spamming, since they don't have certificates, and buying one for each is very expensive.
(buying one to share is too easy to block)b) Assuming the certificate authorities do their job you can actually find the person behind the spam a lot easier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28179021</id>
	<title>Re:Rebuttle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243935300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ICQ had char-by-char chat in like 1997... and it was crap. Who wants someone to see all their mistakes/decisions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ICQ had char-by-char chat in like 1997... and it was crap .
Who wants someone to see all their mistakes/decisions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ICQ had char-by-char chat in like 1997... and it was crap.
Who wants someone to see all their mistakes/decisions?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28178041</id>
	<title>Re:Rebuttle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243881120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the link to the comic would have been sufficient.</p><p>Thank you for telling it like it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the link to the comic would have been sufficient.Thank you for telling it like it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the link to the comic would have been sufficient.Thank you for telling it like it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168013</id>
	<title>Call that curmudgeonly??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243870920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pish tosh! You didn't even get red in the face about the stupid name they're giving it.<br><br>Wave?<br><br>Weren't "message" or "mail" already perfectly acceptable terms for this kind of communication?<br><br>Why are people so eager to corrupt their language at the whim of moronic marketing committees?<br><br>There is no "tweet", no "wave" or "scrobble". I'm not "writing on your wall", I'm "posting a message".<br><br>Gah! &lt;/head-explode&gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pish tosh !
You did n't even get red in the face about the stupid name they 're giving it.Wave ? Were n't " message " or " mail " already perfectly acceptable terms for this kind of communication ? Why are people so eager to corrupt their language at the whim of moronic marketing committees ? There is no " tweet " , no " wave " or " scrobble " .
I 'm not " writing on your wall " , I 'm " posting a message " .Gah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pish tosh!
You didn't even get red in the face about the stupid name they're giving it.Wave?Weren't "message" or "mail" already perfectly acceptable terms for this kind of communication?Why are people so eager to corrupt their language at the whim of moronic marketing committees?There is no "tweet", no "wave" or "scrobble".
I'm not "writing on your wall", I'm "posting a message".Gah! </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167609</id>
	<title>Please repost your article.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243869240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please repost your article on a site that doesn't use Vibrant's rollover advertising technology.</p><p>Given that Daniweb not only uses Vibrant's abusive rollovers but doesn't allow you to disable them without signing up, I'm going to blackhole their site in my DNS until they change that absurd policy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please repost your article on a site that does n't use Vibrant 's rollover advertising technology.Given that Daniweb not only uses Vibrant 's abusive rollovers but does n't allow you to disable them without signing up , I 'm going to blackhole their site in my DNS until they change that absurd policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please repost your article on a site that doesn't use Vibrant's rollover advertising technology.Given that Daniweb not only uses Vibrant's abusive rollovers but doesn't allow you to disable them without signing up, I'm going to blackhole their site in my DNS until they change that absurd policy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168585</id>
	<title>Re:Too integrated</title>
	<author>jdenver</author>
	<datestamp>1243873380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems every company seeks the holy grail of integrated software.  One interface to do everything and time and again the general public ignores these "advances" (anyone remember GEOS?)</p><p>Why?  Let's look at the latest massively successful "product", Twitter.  Summary of twitter: Send 140 Characters to the world.  Wow.  Stunningly complex (from the user's perspective), huh?</p></div><p>
You're right in that every company seeks the holy grail of integrated software, but what's perhaps important here is not the end-user product, in this case.  Google is providing an infrastructure and not a holistic product -- it's allowing people to BUILD on a new algorithm, protocol, and structure for the web.  Much like the early World Wide Web lead to the break-through of linking and deep linking and what not, there's a whole new structure inherent to the wave.  And it will be open source, unencumbered by patents, and people can run their own stuff (sound like the early days of the web?).  I read this article on it that <a href="http://blog.sitesteady.com/2009/05/world-wide-wave/" title="sitesteady.com" rel="nofollow">makes some pretty good points</a> [sitesteady.com] about where Google may be going.  Isn't this a game changer for the Web 2.0 stuff that's come to be quite a bit of what the average person does online?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems every company seeks the holy grail of integrated software .
One interface to do everything and time and again the general public ignores these " advances " ( anyone remember GEOS ? ) Why ?
Let 's look at the latest massively successful " product " , Twitter .
Summary of twitter : Send 140 Characters to the world .
Wow. Stunningly complex ( from the user 's perspective ) , huh ?
You 're right in that every company seeks the holy grail of integrated software , but what 's perhaps important here is not the end-user product , in this case .
Google is providing an infrastructure and not a holistic product -- it 's allowing people to BUILD on a new algorithm , protocol , and structure for the web .
Much like the early World Wide Web lead to the break-through of linking and deep linking and what not , there 's a whole new structure inherent to the wave .
And it will be open source , unencumbered by patents , and people can run their own stuff ( sound like the early days of the web ? ) .
I read this article on it that makes some pretty good points [ sitesteady.com ] about where Google may be going .
Is n't this a game changer for the Web 2.0 stuff that 's come to be quite a bit of what the average person does online ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems every company seeks the holy grail of integrated software.
One interface to do everything and time and again the general public ignores these "advances" (anyone remember GEOS?)Why?
Let's look at the latest massively successful "product", Twitter.
Summary of twitter: Send 140 Characters to the world.
Wow.  Stunningly complex (from the user's perspective), huh?
You're right in that every company seeks the holy grail of integrated software, but what's perhaps important here is not the end-user product, in this case.
Google is providing an infrastructure and not a holistic product -- it's allowing people to BUILD on a new algorithm, protocol, and structure for the web.
Much like the early World Wide Web lead to the break-through of linking and deep linking and what not, there's a whole new structure inherent to the wave.
And it will be open source, unencumbered by patents, and people can run their own stuff (sound like the early days of the web?).
I read this article on it that makes some pretty good points [sitesteady.com] about where Google may be going.
Isn't this a game changer for the Web 2.0 stuff that's come to be quite a bit of what the average person does online?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28180353</id>
	<title>Re:Rebuttle</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1243948620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>* Editing Ability Could Get Out of Control</p></div><p>There is a history bar. Presumably there will be a history tab/page. What exactly do you want from Wave? Something that allow the entire playerbase of WoW to interact in a single document or something to allow collaberation between 1-20 people working on a FOSS project, or in a business?</p></div><p>This is the only valid point he has, and I think it's a valid one. I think it'd be good if you could set certain messages uneditable, or maybe decide that some people can't edit your messages.</p><p>Editing a single document together in the middle of a big discussion about the hows and whys can definitely be a very powerful tool, but I think there might be situations where you'd want to keep this in check a bit. But most likely Google is already way ahead of me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* Editing Ability Could Get Out of ControlThere is a history bar .
Presumably there will be a history tab/page .
What exactly do you want from Wave ?
Something that allow the entire playerbase of WoW to interact in a single document or something to allow collaberation between 1-20 people working on a FOSS project , or in a business ? This is the only valid point he has , and I think it 's a valid one .
I think it 'd be good if you could set certain messages uneditable , or maybe decide that some people ca n't edit your messages.Editing a single document together in the middle of a big discussion about the hows and whys can definitely be a very powerful tool , but I think there might be situations where you 'd want to keep this in check a bit .
But most likely Google is already way ahead of me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* Editing Ability Could Get Out of ControlThere is a history bar.
Presumably there will be a history tab/page.
What exactly do you want from Wave?
Something that allow the entire playerbase of WoW to interact in a single document or something to allow collaberation between 1-20 people working on a FOSS project, or in a business?This is the only valid point he has, and I think it's a valid one.
I think it'd be good if you could set certain messages uneditable, or maybe decide that some people can't edit your messages.Editing a single document together in the middle of a big discussion about the hows and whys can definitely be a very powerful tool, but I think there might be situations where you'd want to keep this in check a bit.
But most likely Google is already way ahead of me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167621</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28171045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28170259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28173047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28180715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28170511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28179021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28173273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28170009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28174367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28178041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28170807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28180353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28182931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28171111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28173189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28170609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28180909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28182509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28172625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28172059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28177189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28174917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28180393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28171817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_1322249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1322249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168077
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28170511
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28180715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167919
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28170807
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28170009
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28182931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28171817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167875
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1322249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168105
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28173047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28174367
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1322249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28173273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28180909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168357
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1322249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169607
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1322249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28171111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168277
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1322249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167539
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1322249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169033
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1322249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28173189
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1322249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28170259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28170609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168981
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28174917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1322249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28182509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169137
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28179021
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28172625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168021
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28180393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28178041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28180353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28171045
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1322249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28169615
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28177189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168035
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168959
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_1322249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28172059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28168037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_1322249.28167869
</commentlist>
</conversation>
