<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_12_1658206</id>
	<title>Oracle Beware &mdash; Google Tests Cloud-Based Database</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1244829660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.itworld.com/" rel="nofollow">narramissic</a> writes <i>"On Tuesday, the same day Google held a press event to launch its Google Apps Sync for Microsoft Outlook, the company quietly announced in its research team blog <a href="http://www.itworld.com/saas/69183/watch-out-oracle-google-tests-cloud-based-database">a new online database called Fusion Tables</a>. Under the hood of Fusion Tables is data-spaces technology, which would 'allow Google to add to the conventional two-dimensional database tables a third coordinate with <a href="http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2009/06/google-fusion-tables.html">elements like product reviews, blog posts, Twitter messages and the like</a>, as well as a fourth dimension of real-time updates,' according to Stephen E. Arnold, a technology and financial analyst. 'So now we have an n-cube, a four-dimensional space, and in that space we can now do new kinds of queries which create new kinds of products and new market opportunities,' said Arnold, whose research about this topic includes a study done for IDC last August. 'If you're IBM, Microsoft and Oracle, your worst nightmare is now visible.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>narramissic writes " On Tuesday , the same day Google held a press event to launch its Google Apps Sync for Microsoft Outlook , the company quietly announced in its research team blog a new online database called Fusion Tables .
Under the hood of Fusion Tables is data-spaces technology , which would 'allow Google to add to the conventional two-dimensional database tables a third coordinate with elements like product reviews , blog posts , Twitter messages and the like , as well as a fourth dimension of real-time updates, ' according to Stephen E. Arnold , a technology and financial analyst .
'So now we have an n-cube , a four-dimensional space , and in that space we can now do new kinds of queries which create new kinds of products and new market opportunities, ' said Arnold , whose research about this topic includes a study done for IDC last August .
'If you 're IBM , Microsoft and Oracle , your worst nightmare is now visible .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>narramissic writes "On Tuesday, the same day Google held a press event to launch its Google Apps Sync for Microsoft Outlook, the company quietly announced in its research team blog a new online database called Fusion Tables.
Under the hood of Fusion Tables is data-spaces technology, which would 'allow Google to add to the conventional two-dimensional database tables a third coordinate with elements like product reviews, blog posts, Twitter messages and the like, as well as a fourth dimension of real-time updates,' according to Stephen E. Arnold, a technology and financial analyst.
'So now we have an n-cube, a four-dimensional space, and in that space we can now do new kinds of queries which create new kinds of products and new market opportunities,' said Arnold, whose research about this topic includes a study done for IDC last August.
'If you're IBM, Microsoft and Oracle, your worst nightmare is now visible.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313357</id>
	<title>Re:Why should ANY database company</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244797920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What happens when your internet connection goes down?</p></div><p>Companies have dealt with this already -- for instance, often a central office will have the data, perhaps on an actual mainframe, but regardless -- branch offices connect in via VPN. No Internet, no VPN.</p><p>Better question: What happens when your power goes out? That seems to happen about as often as Internet being out -- more often, in fact, if you don't count the fact that Internet generally stops working when power does.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What happens when someone breaks in</p></div><p>And this is <i>less</i> likely in-house?</p><p>Quick question: Do you honestly believe you have a better IT department -- in particular, better security -- than Google? If so, you're either in a very small minority, or you're out of your fucking mind.</p><p>It's called outsourcing. It's not new.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The same goes for the "cloud" that google has consisting of googledocs. Why would any corporate entity (or home user?) want to rely upon internet based data storage for valuable documents?</p></div><p>Because it's convenient? Duh?</p><p>Oh, Google Docs can work offline, and MS Office can work online, which makes your whole argument moot. It makes me wonder if you're actually that uninformed, or if you're astroturfing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens when your internet connection goes down ? Companies have dealt with this already -- for instance , often a central office will have the data , perhaps on an actual mainframe , but regardless -- branch offices connect in via VPN .
No Internet , no VPN.Better question : What happens when your power goes out ?
That seems to happen about as often as Internet being out -- more often , in fact , if you do n't count the fact that Internet generally stops working when power does.What happens when someone breaks inAnd this is less likely in-house ? Quick question : Do you honestly believe you have a better IT department -- in particular , better security -- than Google ?
If so , you 're either in a very small minority , or you 're out of your fucking mind.It 's called outsourcing .
It 's not new.The same goes for the " cloud " that google has consisting of googledocs .
Why would any corporate entity ( or home user ?
) want to rely upon internet based data storage for valuable documents ? Because it 's convenient ?
Duh ? Oh , Google Docs can work offline , and MS Office can work online , which makes your whole argument moot .
It makes me wonder if you 're actually that uninformed , or if you 're astroturfing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens when your internet connection goes down?Companies have dealt with this already -- for instance, often a central office will have the data, perhaps on an actual mainframe, but regardless -- branch offices connect in via VPN.
No Internet, no VPN.Better question: What happens when your power goes out?
That seems to happen about as often as Internet being out -- more often, in fact, if you don't count the fact that Internet generally stops working when power does.What happens when someone breaks inAnd this is less likely in-house?Quick question: Do you honestly believe you have a better IT department -- in particular, better security -- than Google?
If so, you're either in a very small minority, or you're out of your fucking mind.It's called outsourcing.
It's not new.The same goes for the "cloud" that google has consisting of googledocs.
Why would any corporate entity (or home user?
) want to rely upon internet based data storage for valuable documents?Because it's convenient?
Duh?Oh, Google Docs can work offline, and MS Office can work online, which makes your whole argument moot.
It makes me wonder if you're actually that uninformed, or if you're astroturfing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311263</id>
	<title>Google had better look out</title>
	<author>Facegarden</author>
	<datestamp>1244833560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm coming out with a five-dimensional database.<br>-Taylor</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm coming out with a five-dimensional database.-Taylor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm coming out with a five-dimensional database.-Taylor</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311443</id>
	<title>Re:Um... what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244834220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's good old OLAP. Google just loves to reinvent the wheel all the time. Oracle beat the proprietary Google solution 20 years ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's good old OLAP .
Google just loves to reinvent the wheel all the time .
Oracle beat the proprietary Google solution 20 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's good old OLAP.
Google just loves to reinvent the wheel all the time.
Oracle beat the proprietary Google solution 20 years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313147</id>
	<title>Memory Based Databases</title>
	<author>smist08</author>
	<datestamp>1244840340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From this article, I couldn't tell, but my real interest is in how Google does massively distributed in-memory databases. That is the technology I'm most interested in. I don't really care so much about the other stuff. Is this what Google runs? Or just an academic side project?</htmltext>
<tokenext>From this article , I could n't tell , but my real interest is in how Google does massively distributed in-memory databases .
That is the technology I 'm most interested in .
I do n't really care so much about the other stuff .
Is this what Google runs ?
Or just an academic side project ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From this article, I couldn't tell, but my real interest is in how Google does massively distributed in-memory databases.
That is the technology I'm most interested in.
I don't really care so much about the other stuff.
Is this what Google runs?
Or just an academic side project?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312083</id>
	<title>Re:red?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244836620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When it gets out of beta the world as we know it will seize to exist.</p></div><p>
Thankfully none of us will be alive to see the day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When it gets out of beta the world as we know it will seize to exist .
Thankfully none of us will be alive to see the day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it gets out of beta the world as we know it will seize to exist.
Thankfully none of us will be alive to see the day.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491</id>
	<title>Proprietary data?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244834460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What company in their right mind is going to upload the crown jewels into someone else's computer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What company in their right mind is going to upload the crown jewels into someone else 's computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What company in their right mind is going to upload the crown jewels into someone else's computer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28333991</id>
	<title>Re:Um... what?</title>
	<author>mbowen</author>
	<datestamp>1245073500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes and no.</p><p>What they're describing what I'd describe as an OLAP 2.0.  They're taking similar capabilities (central data store, cubed data) and combining them with user generated content, sharing and the cloud.</p><p>The system looks extremely similar to an BI system.</p><p>I'd make an counter point to TFA: I actually think that this is probablly Business Objects / Microstrategy / Cognos's biggest dream: the system shows the power that effectively BI can provide an business with data which is effectively shared and public.</p><p>Google are making their business case: give vendor lots-of-money and they can gain the capability over your own data, but in an nicely managable manner (so your competitors won't be getting access to it).</p></div><p>It's not even OLAP 0.5.</p><p>

Fusion Tables is to OLAP what Dreamweaver is to Typepad. It's a very elementary storage capability that demonstrates Google's ability to abstract what they do on the back end to 'tables'. It is so far from an OLAP or BI system as to be a joke. Oracle and Microsoft have nothing to fear just like Bloomberg has nothing to fear from Google Finance. There are three reasons.
</p><p>
1. It's not OLAP. As a very elementary and basic thing, you'd have to be able to do operations in an abstracted, dimensionally aware language across multiple entities. You should be able to say 'reduce all of my global warming statistics by 5\%'. Fusion Tables doesn't come close to being able to do that, much less handle conditional logic.
</p><p>
2. There's no migration facility. Upload a spreadsheet? You couldn't even get a business that runs Quickbooks to upload their records sensibly into Fusion Tables, let alone an enterprise.
</p><p>
3. Everybody who actually does BI for a living is not impressed. There's no *reason* to move because this offers nothing *new*. There are fundamental reasons why good BI is hard. When open-source BI vendors like Pentaho start saying - hey we quit, then that's when it's time to pay attention.
</p><p>
Google would be wise to put in some facility to integrate these objects with the blogosphere, something nobody has yet done. When these little tables are containerized such that they can be embedded like YouTube videos, complete with visualization, that will be a success. Get it as good as a generalized Gapminder (pitifully slow at gapminder.com) and then we can talk; it will be more like OLAP but it still won't be real OLAP, much less enterprise OLAP.

--
I think there are some fundamental problems that Google has anyway, with regards to the size of data that works in parallel across their storage infrastructure that is going to screw up their ability to manage the nitpicky drips of data that matter in datasets of OLAPable interest.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and no.What they 're describing what I 'd describe as an OLAP 2.0 .
They 're taking similar capabilities ( central data store , cubed data ) and combining them with user generated content , sharing and the cloud.The system looks extremely similar to an BI system.I 'd make an counter point to TFA : I actually think that this is probablly Business Objects / Microstrategy / Cognos 's biggest dream : the system shows the power that effectively BI can provide an business with data which is effectively shared and public.Google are making their business case : give vendor lots-of-money and they can gain the capability over your own data , but in an nicely managable manner ( so your competitors wo n't be getting access to it ) .It 's not even OLAP 0.5 .
Fusion Tables is to OLAP what Dreamweaver is to Typepad .
It 's a very elementary storage capability that demonstrates Google 's ability to abstract what they do on the back end to 'tables' .
It is so far from an OLAP or BI system as to be a joke .
Oracle and Microsoft have nothing to fear just like Bloomberg has nothing to fear from Google Finance .
There are three reasons .
1. It 's not OLAP .
As a very elementary and basic thing , you 'd have to be able to do operations in an abstracted , dimensionally aware language across multiple entities .
You should be able to say 'reduce all of my global warming statistics by 5 \ % ' .
Fusion Tables does n't come close to being able to do that , much less handle conditional logic .
2. There 's no migration facility .
Upload a spreadsheet ?
You could n't even get a business that runs Quickbooks to upload their records sensibly into Fusion Tables , let alone an enterprise .
3. Everybody who actually does BI for a living is not impressed .
There 's no * reason * to move because this offers nothing * new * .
There are fundamental reasons why good BI is hard .
When open-source BI vendors like Pentaho start saying - hey we quit , then that 's when it 's time to pay attention .
Google would be wise to put in some facility to integrate these objects with the blogosphere , something nobody has yet done .
When these little tables are containerized such that they can be embedded like YouTube videos , complete with visualization , that will be a success .
Get it as good as a generalized Gapminder ( pitifully slow at gapminder.com ) and then we can talk ; it will be more like OLAP but it still wo n't be real OLAP , much less enterprise OLAP .
-- I think there are some fundamental problems that Google has anyway , with regards to the size of data that works in parallel across their storage infrastructure that is going to screw up their ability to manage the nitpicky drips of data that matter in datasets of OLAPable interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and no.What they're describing what I'd describe as an OLAP 2.0.
They're taking similar capabilities (central data store, cubed data) and combining them with user generated content, sharing and the cloud.The system looks extremely similar to an BI system.I'd make an counter point to TFA: I actually think that this is probablly Business Objects / Microstrategy / Cognos's biggest dream: the system shows the power that effectively BI can provide an business with data which is effectively shared and public.Google are making their business case: give vendor lots-of-money and they can gain the capability over your own data, but in an nicely managable manner (so your competitors won't be getting access to it).It's not even OLAP 0.5.
Fusion Tables is to OLAP what Dreamweaver is to Typepad.
It's a very elementary storage capability that demonstrates Google's ability to abstract what they do on the back end to 'tables'.
It is so far from an OLAP or BI system as to be a joke.
Oracle and Microsoft have nothing to fear just like Bloomberg has nothing to fear from Google Finance.
There are three reasons.
1. It's not OLAP.
As a very elementary and basic thing, you'd have to be able to do operations in an abstracted, dimensionally aware language across multiple entities.
You should be able to say 'reduce all of my global warming statistics by 5\%'.
Fusion Tables doesn't come close to being able to do that, much less handle conditional logic.
2. There's no migration facility.
Upload a spreadsheet?
You couldn't even get a business that runs Quickbooks to upload their records sensibly into Fusion Tables, let alone an enterprise.
3. Everybody who actually does BI for a living is not impressed.
There's no *reason* to move because this offers nothing *new*.
There are fundamental reasons why good BI is hard.
When open-source BI vendors like Pentaho start saying - hey we quit, then that's when it's time to pay attention.
Google would be wise to put in some facility to integrate these objects with the blogosphere, something nobody has yet done.
When these little tables are containerized such that they can be embedded like YouTube videos, complete with visualization, that will be a success.
Get it as good as a generalized Gapminder (pitifully slow at gapminder.com) and then we can talk; it will be more like OLAP but it still won't be real OLAP, much less enterprise OLAP.
--
I think there are some fundamental problems that Google has anyway, with regards to the size of data that works in parallel across their storage infrastructure that is going to screw up their ability to manage the nitpicky drips of data that matter in datasets of OLAPable interest.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28315203</id>
	<title>Re:Why should ANY database company</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244807160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I think most IT departements are better than the monkeys responsible for Google Mail. My company uses Google Mail and the outages are much more common than any other email solution. We pay for the stuff and they don't even apologize for a full day of outage. Shorter outages too have been common.</p><p>Sure I will agree that Google has several other branches with almost perfect track records.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I think most IT departements are better than the monkeys responsible for Google Mail .
My company uses Google Mail and the outages are much more common than any other email solution .
We pay for the stuff and they do n't even apologize for a full day of outage .
Shorter outages too have been common.Sure I will agree that Google has several other branches with almost perfect track records .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I think most IT departements are better than the monkeys responsible for Google Mail.
My company uses Google Mail and the outages are much more common than any other email solution.
We pay for the stuff and they don't even apologize for a full day of outage.
Shorter outages too have been common.Sure I will agree that Google has several other branches with almost perfect track records.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311531</id>
	<title>Re:interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244834580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm interested in how this is going to further web development and online collaboration.</p></div><p>The same way every other technology that is nothing but hype has impacted it.  If you don't use it, you won't be cool enough.  Therefore everyone will start using it even though the result is a big ugly slow web app that doesn't add much in the way of usability but won't run on most browsers, is error prone on other browsers and takes an up to date beefy system just to run the same basic thing that ran fine on older hardware with the "old" tech.</p><p>Seriously though.  Why all the relational database and SQL bashing?  Someone explain to be what sort of new math people are trying to invent that will invalidate the mathematics of set theory and render it obsolete?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm interested in how this is going to further web development and online collaboration.The same way every other technology that is nothing but hype has impacted it .
If you do n't use it , you wo n't be cool enough .
Therefore everyone will start using it even though the result is a big ugly slow web app that does n't add much in the way of usability but wo n't run on most browsers , is error prone on other browsers and takes an up to date beefy system just to run the same basic thing that ran fine on older hardware with the " old " tech.Seriously though .
Why all the relational database and SQL bashing ?
Someone explain to be what sort of new math people are trying to invent that will invalidate the mathematics of set theory and render it obsolete ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm interested in how this is going to further web development and online collaboration.The same way every other technology that is nothing but hype has impacted it.
If you don't use it, you won't be cool enough.
Therefore everyone will start using it even though the result is a big ugly slow web app that doesn't add much in the way of usability but won't run on most browsers, is error prone on other browsers and takes an up to date beefy system just to run the same basic thing that ran fine on older hardware with the "old" tech.Seriously though.
Why all the relational database and SQL bashing?
Someone explain to be what sort of new math people are trying to invent that will invalidate the mathematics of set theory and render it obsolete?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312347</id>
	<title>Re:Proprietary data?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244837580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No kidding, I mean data = money.</p><p>And I keep all my money under a mattress in my house, why on earth would I give my money to a bank?</p><p>I also generate my own electricity, collect, pump and filter my water and treat my own sewage.</p><p>Trust no one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No kidding , I mean data = money.And I keep all my money under a mattress in my house , why on earth would I give my money to a bank ? I also generate my own electricity , collect , pump and filter my water and treat my own sewage.Trust no one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No kidding, I mean data = money.And I keep all my money under a mattress in my house, why on earth would I give my money to a bank?I also generate my own electricity, collect, pump and filter my water and treat my own sewage.Trust no one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28314511</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Google</title>
	<author>Clandestine\_Blaze</author>
	<datestamp>1244803080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unless you add fifth dimensional <b>monkeys</b>, you just aren't cool anymore.</p></div><p>I thought they had consultants?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you add fifth dimensional monkeys , you just are n't cool anymore.I thought they had consultants ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you add fifth dimensional monkeys, you just aren't cool anymore.I thought they had consultants?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312213</id>
	<title>Less Marketing speak...what its about...</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1244837100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The marketing speak and abuse of the term "dimensions" in TFS is entirely unhelpful as to what "dataspaces" are about. The pre-alpha release of Fusion Tables now available has pretty limited (though interesting) functionality; a broader picture of what "dataspaces" are about is available in this <a href="http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~franklin/Papers/dataspaceSR.pdf" title="berkeley.edu">paper</a> [berkeley.edu], which is probably more useful to the technically- (rather than marketing-) oriented crowd on Slashdot.</p><p>Of particular note, a "DataSpace Support Platform" (DSSP) is not a replacement for RDBMSs, but instead something that fits a different role and provides a common interface for data stored in heterogenous underlying storage systems, some of which could be RDBMSs. Its true that some RDBMSs do provide some features along these lines, but they aren't the principal strength of RDBMSs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The marketing speak and abuse of the term " dimensions " in TFS is entirely unhelpful as to what " dataspaces " are about .
The pre-alpha release of Fusion Tables now available has pretty limited ( though interesting ) functionality ; a broader picture of what " dataspaces " are about is available in this paper [ berkeley.edu ] , which is probably more useful to the technically- ( rather than marketing- ) oriented crowd on Slashdot.Of particular note , a " DataSpace Support Platform " ( DSSP ) is not a replacement for RDBMSs , but instead something that fits a different role and provides a common interface for data stored in heterogenous underlying storage systems , some of which could be RDBMSs .
Its true that some RDBMSs do provide some features along these lines , but they are n't the principal strength of RDBMSs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The marketing speak and abuse of the term "dimensions" in TFS is entirely unhelpful as to what "dataspaces" are about.
The pre-alpha release of Fusion Tables now available has pretty limited (though interesting) functionality; a broader picture of what "dataspaces" are about is available in this paper [berkeley.edu], which is probably more useful to the technically- (rather than marketing-) oriented crowd on Slashdot.Of particular note, a "DataSpace Support Platform" (DSSP) is not a replacement for RDBMSs, but instead something that fits a different role and provides a common interface for data stored in heterogenous underlying storage systems, some of which could be RDBMSs.
Its true that some RDBMSs do provide some features along these lines, but they aren't the principal strength of RDBMSs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311761</id>
	<title>Re:Proprietary data?</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1244835480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I stick my crown jewels into someone else's mouth. Swimmers (like information) want to be free! ~~~~o</htmltext>
<tokenext>I stick my crown jewels into someone else 's mouth .
Swimmers ( like information ) want to be free !
~ ~ ~ ~ o</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stick my crown jewels into someone else's mouth.
Swimmers (like information) want to be free!
~~~~o</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313379</id>
	<title>Re:Dimensional nonsense?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244797980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you don't use twitter posts as a foreign key, how do you ever expect the data to be properly socially indexed?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't use twitter posts as a foreign key , how do you ever expect the data to be properly socially indexed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't use twitter posts as a foreign key, how do you ever expect the data to be properly socially indexed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311697</id>
	<title>Ummm... shouldn't this be called</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244835240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google adds Joins?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google adds Joins ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google adds Joins?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311751</id>
	<title>Why should ANY database company</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244835420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>be afraid of cloud computing?  What corporation in their right mind would EVER put valuable company information on the internet?  What happens when your internet connection goes down?  What happens when someone breaks in and takes whatever data you have (or worse, takes it and deletes the original data).  I can't see how this could POSSIBLY be a good idea for any corporate entity.</p><p>The same goes for the "cloud" that google has consisting of googledocs.  Why would any corporate entity (or home user?) want to rely upon internet based data storage for valuable documents?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>be afraid of cloud computing ?
What corporation in their right mind would EVER put valuable company information on the internet ?
What happens when your internet connection goes down ?
What happens when someone breaks in and takes whatever data you have ( or worse , takes it and deletes the original data ) .
I ca n't see how this could POSSIBLY be a good idea for any corporate entity.The same goes for the " cloud " that google has consisting of googledocs .
Why would any corporate entity ( or home user ?
) want to rely upon internet based data storage for valuable documents ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>be afraid of cloud computing?
What corporation in their right mind would EVER put valuable company information on the internet?
What happens when your internet connection goes down?
What happens when someone breaks in and takes whatever data you have (or worse, takes it and deletes the original data).
I can't see how this could POSSIBLY be a good idea for any corporate entity.The same goes for the "cloud" that google has consisting of googledocs.
Why would any corporate entity (or home user?
) want to rely upon internet based data storage for valuable documents?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311373</id>
	<title>Hype.</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1244833920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>'If you're IBM, Microsoft and Oracle, your worst nightmare is now visible.'</i> <p>

Really? It probably threatens slashdot's business model more than it does corporate IT vendors. Imagine a new mash up that delivers all the content of slashdot without any of the ads nor the frequent fiddling with message filter UIs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'If you 're IBM , Microsoft and Oracle , your worst nightmare is now visible .
' Really ?
It probably threatens slashdot 's business model more than it does corporate IT vendors .
Imagine a new mash up that delivers all the content of slashdot without any of the ads nor the frequent fiddling with message filter UIs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'If you're IBM, Microsoft and Oracle, your worst nightmare is now visible.
' 

Really?
It probably threatens slashdot's business model more than it does corporate IT vendors.
Imagine a new mash up that delivers all the content of slashdot without any of the ads nor the frequent fiddling with message filter UIs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311687</id>
	<title>Re:Worst nightmare indeed</title>
	<author>Bieeanda</author>
	<datestamp>1244835240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not just a hype overdose, but a hype<i>r</i> overdose!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not just a hype overdose , but a hyper overdose !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not just a hype overdose, but a hyper overdose!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312451</id>
	<title>Re:Proprietary data?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1244838000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What company in their right mind is going to upload the crown jewels into someone else's computer?</p></div></blockquote><p>While the pre-alpha version of Fusion Tables does require uploading the data to it for it to use, the whole concept of Dataspaces is providing a unified interface to heterogenous collections of underlying datastores that aren't directly under the complete control of the Dataspace, so presumably, when the system is more developed, you won't need to trust anyone else's computer with control of your data to make use of it with this product.</p><p>But there isn't a lot of information about where they plan to go on this; that's just what I glean from having read the paper on Dataspaces and looked at what Fusion Tables does now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What company in their right mind is going to upload the crown jewels into someone else 's computer ? While the pre-alpha version of Fusion Tables does require uploading the data to it for it to use , the whole concept of Dataspaces is providing a unified interface to heterogenous collections of underlying datastores that are n't directly under the complete control of the Dataspace , so presumably , when the system is more developed , you wo n't need to trust anyone else 's computer with control of your data to make use of it with this product.But there is n't a lot of information about where they plan to go on this ; that 's just what I glean from having read the paper on Dataspaces and looked at what Fusion Tables does now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What company in their right mind is going to upload the crown jewels into someone else's computer?While the pre-alpha version of Fusion Tables does require uploading the data to it for it to use, the whole concept of Dataspaces is providing a unified interface to heterogenous collections of underlying datastores that aren't directly under the complete control of the Dataspace, so presumably, when the system is more developed, you won't need to trust anyone else's computer with control of your data to make use of it with this product.But there isn't a lot of information about where they plan to go on this; that's just what I glean from having read the paper on Dataspaces and looked at what Fusion Tables does now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312687</id>
	<title>Re:Merged?</title>
	<author>genghisjahn</author>
	<datestamp>1244838720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes...and their new name is: IBM, Microsoft and Oracle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes...and their new name is : IBM , Microsoft and Oracle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes...and their new name is: IBM, Microsoft and Oracle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311319</id>
	<title>You must be joking!</title>
	<author>macbeth66</author>
	<datestamp>1244833740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br> <br>

     "'If you're IBM, Microsoft and Oracle, your worst nightmare is now visible.'"

<br> <br>

Like I would EVER trust a company to store my data, let alone touch it.  The life's blood of my company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" 'If you 're IBM , Microsoft and Oracle , your worst nightmare is now visible .
' " Like I would EVER trust a company to store my data , let alone touch it .
The life 's blood of my company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 

     "'If you're IBM, Microsoft and Oracle, your worst nightmare is now visible.
'"

 

Like I would EVER trust a company to store my data, let alone touch it.
The life's blood of my company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311407</id>
	<title>Re:Um... what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244834100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'allow Google to add to the conventional two-dimensional database tables a third coordinate with elements like product reviews, blog posts, Twitter messages and the like, as well as a fourth dimension of real-time updates'</p></div></blockquote><p>
What does that <i>even mean</i>?! "[A] fourth dimension of real-time updates"? Oh my God, Google has triggers!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'allow Google to add to the conventional two-dimensional database tables a third coordinate with elements like product reviews , blog posts , Twitter messages and the like , as well as a fourth dimension of real-time updates ' What does that even mean ? !
" [ A ] fourth dimension of real-time updates " ?
Oh my God , Google has triggers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'allow Google to add to the conventional two-dimensional database tables a third coordinate with elements like product reviews, blog posts, Twitter messages and the like, as well as a fourth dimension of real-time updates'
What does that even mean?!
"[A] fourth dimension of real-time updates"?
Oh my God, Google has triggers!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28314753</id>
	<title>Re:Less Marketing speak...what its about...</title>
	<author>blincoln</author>
	<datestamp>1244804160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. From skimming over the paper, it looks like this is very much like a system I designed (but never implemented) about a year after the paper you link to was written. Microsoft also has similar technology in the form of the Business Data Catalogue in SharePoint. I hadn't read the paper until now, so I guess the concept is sort of zeitgeisty.<br>Ideally, it would let users work with data sort of like Tom Cruise in Minority Report, or MI6 in one of the two Daniel Craig Bond films - giving users a space to browse, search, and associate data from a bunch of different underlying sources (which the system handles the dirty work of abstracting away to whatever extent is appropriate for the user base).<br>The one I designed was geared toward at least semi-technical users, so it was supposed to do things like colour-code pieces of data to indicate which source they were from and how high the confidence level was if there was a conflict between information in multiple sources or the source was considered less than 100\% reliable for some reason.<br>Anyway, I ended up making a very basic, read-only tool at work which implemented the general concept, and the users seem to love it. If I had the time, and hadn't been apparently beaten to it by MS and Google (among others), I'd really like to build the real thing.<br>I can see why the marketing-type guy in TFA kind of went off the deep end describing it. Having all that data at your fingertips is pretty cool, and I remember being similarly excited when I realized what it would let you do, except I had the terminology to describe it accurately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
From skimming over the paper , it looks like this is very much like a system I designed ( but never implemented ) about a year after the paper you link to was written .
Microsoft also has similar technology in the form of the Business Data Catalogue in SharePoint .
I had n't read the paper until now , so I guess the concept is sort of zeitgeisty.Ideally , it would let users work with data sort of like Tom Cruise in Minority Report , or MI6 in one of the two Daniel Craig Bond films - giving users a space to browse , search , and associate data from a bunch of different underlying sources ( which the system handles the dirty work of abstracting away to whatever extent is appropriate for the user base ) .The one I designed was geared toward at least semi-technical users , so it was supposed to do things like colour-code pieces of data to indicate which source they were from and how high the confidence level was if there was a conflict between information in multiple sources or the source was considered less than 100 \ % reliable for some reason.Anyway , I ended up making a very basic , read-only tool at work which implemented the general concept , and the users seem to love it .
If I had the time , and had n't been apparently beaten to it by MS and Google ( among others ) , I 'd really like to build the real thing.I can see why the marketing-type guy in TFA kind of went off the deep end describing it .
Having all that data at your fingertips is pretty cool , and I remember being similarly excited when I realized what it would let you do , except I had the terminology to describe it accurately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
From skimming over the paper, it looks like this is very much like a system I designed (but never implemented) about a year after the paper you link to was written.
Microsoft also has similar technology in the form of the Business Data Catalogue in SharePoint.
I hadn't read the paper until now, so I guess the concept is sort of zeitgeisty.Ideally, it would let users work with data sort of like Tom Cruise in Minority Report, or MI6 in one of the two Daniel Craig Bond films - giving users a space to browse, search, and associate data from a bunch of different underlying sources (which the system handles the dirty work of abstracting away to whatever extent is appropriate for the user base).The one I designed was geared toward at least semi-technical users, so it was supposed to do things like colour-code pieces of data to indicate which source they were from and how high the confidence level was if there was a conflict between information in multiple sources or the source was considered less than 100\% reliable for some reason.Anyway, I ended up making a very basic, read-only tool at work which implemented the general concept, and the users seem to love it.
If I had the time, and hadn't been apparently beaten to it by MS and Google (among others), I'd really like to build the real thing.I can see why the marketing-type guy in TFA kind of went off the deep end describing it.
Having all that data at your fingertips is pretty cool, and I remember being similarly excited when I realized what it would let you do, except I had the terminology to describe it accurately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28345129</id>
	<title>Re:Proprietary data?</title>
	<author>St.Creed</author>
	<datestamp>1245184020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Companies that would want to publish their data set to the world for PR reasons now have a very nice platform to do so. Companies that want to monetize their data can do that as well on the same platform. The old way is to get FTP downloads. The new way is to subscribe to specific Fusion Tables.
<p>
I know sport statistics companies that make a good living of their data - this could be a big one for them as soon as Google adds billing facilities to it. And Google would have a HUGE incentive for doing exactly that because it would grant them unlimited access to data with actual value.
</p><p>
It is a very very smart move by Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies that would want to publish their data set to the world for PR reasons now have a very nice platform to do so .
Companies that want to monetize their data can do that as well on the same platform .
The old way is to get FTP downloads .
The new way is to subscribe to specific Fusion Tables .
I know sport statistics companies that make a good living of their data - this could be a big one for them as soon as Google adds billing facilities to it .
And Google would have a HUGE incentive for doing exactly that because it would grant them unlimited access to data with actual value .
It is a very very smart move by Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies that would want to publish their data set to the world for PR reasons now have a very nice platform to do so.
Companies that want to monetize their data can do that as well on the same platform.
The old way is to get FTP downloads.
The new way is to subscribe to specific Fusion Tables.
I know sport statistics companies that make a good living of their data - this could be a big one for them as soon as Google adds billing facilities to it.
And Google would have a HUGE incentive for doing exactly that because it would grant them unlimited access to data with actual value.
It is a very very smart move by Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311291</id>
	<title>Dimensional nonsense?</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1244833680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get it. Relational databases are deficient, because they need twitter posts and the FOURTH DIMENSION of being able to update and insert data?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get it .
Relational databases are deficient , because they need twitter posts and the FOURTH DIMENSION of being able to update and insert data ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get it.
Relational databases are deficient, because they need twitter posts and the FOURTH DIMENSION of being able to update and insert data?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311595</id>
	<title>Re:Dimensional nonsense?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244834820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly someone has no clue of the word dimension and relational databases. Just because a table can be printed on paper doesn't make it two dimensional.</p><p>In relational databases a table is a set of tuples. A tuple is a finite sequence of elements. An n-tuple has n elements and is itsself an element in a n-dimensional space.</p><p>That fourth dimension nonsense is what you get if you don't have a basic education of relational databases and relational algebra. But thats just the old stuff of the '70s that is way outdated, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly someone has no clue of the word dimension and relational databases .
Just because a table can be printed on paper does n't make it two dimensional.In relational databases a table is a set of tuples .
A tuple is a finite sequence of elements .
An n-tuple has n elements and is itsself an element in a n-dimensional space.That fourth dimension nonsense is what you get if you do n't have a basic education of relational databases and relational algebra .
But thats just the old stuff of the '70s that is way outdated , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly someone has no clue of the word dimension and relational databases.
Just because a table can be printed on paper doesn't make it two dimensional.In relational databases a table is a set of tuples.
A tuple is a finite sequence of elements.
An n-tuple has n elements and is itsself an element in a n-dimensional space.That fourth dimension nonsense is what you get if you don't have a basic education of relational databases and relational algebra.
But thats just the old stuff of the '70s that is way outdated, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312537</id>
	<title>Re:Worst nightmare indeed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244838180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just had a flashback to vector calculus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just had a flashback to vector calculus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just had a flashback to vector calculus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312121</id>
	<title>Re:Merged?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244836740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'If you're IBM, Microsoft and Oracle, your worst nightmare is now visible.'
</p><p>I didn't realize they had merged.</p></div><p>Not only have they merged, but they're now a single person who dreams (and, consequently, has nightmares)... and he reads Slashdot, too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'If you 're IBM , Microsoft and Oracle , your worst nightmare is now visible .
' I did n't realize they had merged.Not only have they merged , but they 're now a single person who dreams ( and , consequently , has nightmares ) ... and he reads Slashdot , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'If you're IBM, Microsoft and Oracle, your worst nightmare is now visible.
'
I didn't realize they had merged.Not only have they merged, but they're now a single person who dreams (and, consequently, has nightmares)... and he reads Slashdot, too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311743</id>
	<title>Re:Um... what?</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1244835420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, that's more or less <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1266961&amp;cid=28311613" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">what I figured after reading a bit more through stuff</a> [slashdot.org].  The article Slashdot is sourcing this from is just clueless about what the real differentiating point is; it's not the fact that it's OLAP, it's the UI and integration with other Google or web data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that 's more or less what I figured after reading a bit more through stuff [ slashdot.org ] .
The article Slashdot is sourcing this from is just clueless about what the real differentiating point is ; it 's not the fact that it 's OLAP , it 's the UI and integration with other Google or web data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that's more or less what I figured after reading a bit more through stuff [slashdot.org].
The article Slashdot is sourcing this from is just clueless about what the real differentiating point is; it's not the fact that it's OLAP, it's the UI and integration with other Google or web data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28335251</id>
	<title>Two Words: Referential Integrity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245081120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Referential integrity will always matter with databases or else they're not databases, they're mashups. If you let anybody play with the structure of the data, you lose integrity and the ability for programmers to do anything significant in visual abstraction. If you don't let anybody play with the structure of the data you don't have a mashup, you just have another sort of database.</p><p>What everybody has been assuming here is that the creators and consumers of the data are the same people. As soon as they are not, you need very strict rules governing the meaning of the data, or there's no 'BI' to it. It's just everybody's interpretation of anybody's data. Which is what search is now. The point of BI is to make the few rational conclusions implicit in the data unambiguously evident to whomever sees it. You cannot do that without structure from the beginning to the end of the data supply chain.</p><p>Think forensics. Think WMD inspections. Think admissible evidence. If it's not structured it's not intelligence. You cannot structure anything without referential integrity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Referential integrity will always matter with databases or else they 're not databases , they 're mashups .
If you let anybody play with the structure of the data , you lose integrity and the ability for programmers to do anything significant in visual abstraction .
If you do n't let anybody play with the structure of the data you do n't have a mashup , you just have another sort of database.What everybody has been assuming here is that the creators and consumers of the data are the same people .
As soon as they are not , you need very strict rules governing the meaning of the data , or there 's no 'BI ' to it .
It 's just everybody 's interpretation of anybody 's data .
Which is what search is now .
The point of BI is to make the few rational conclusions implicit in the data unambiguously evident to whomever sees it .
You can not do that without structure from the beginning to the end of the data supply chain.Think forensics .
Think WMD inspections .
Think admissible evidence .
If it 's not structured it 's not intelligence .
You can not structure anything without referential integrity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Referential integrity will always matter with databases or else they're not databases, they're mashups.
If you let anybody play with the structure of the data, you lose integrity and the ability for programmers to do anything significant in visual abstraction.
If you don't let anybody play with the structure of the data you don't have a mashup, you just have another sort of database.What everybody has been assuming here is that the creators and consumers of the data are the same people.
As soon as they are not, you need very strict rules governing the meaning of the data, or there's no 'BI' to it.
It's just everybody's interpretation of anybody's data.
Which is what search is now.
The point of BI is to make the few rational conclusions implicit in the data unambiguously evident to whomever sees it.
You cannot do that without structure from the beginning to the end of the data supply chain.Think forensics.
Think WMD inspections.
Think admissible evidence.
If it's not structured it's not intelligence.
You cannot structure anything without referential integrity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313347</id>
	<title>Re:interesting</title>
	<author>Dexx</author>
	<datestamp>1244797860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's more of an alternative to stuff like Crystal Reports?<br>Dump data into google tables, let executives play with it, generate charts, trends, etc.</p><p>Or B2B  customers could sift through their data which is updated by a core data system.<br>Data imports could be handled by dumping the data to a google table, then customers and account managers could hash out values/columns before involving a DBA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's more of an alternative to stuff like Crystal Reports ? Dump data into google tables , let executives play with it , generate charts , trends , etc.Or B2B customers could sift through their data which is updated by a core data system.Data imports could be handled by dumping the data to a google table , then customers and account managers could hash out values/columns before involving a DBA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's more of an alternative to stuff like Crystal Reports?Dump data into google tables, let executives play with it, generate charts, trends, etc.Or B2B  customers could sift through their data which is updated by a core data system.Data imports could be handled by dumping the data to a google table, then customers and account managers could hash out values/columns before involving a DBA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311303</id>
	<title>interesting</title>
	<author>Malenx</author>
	<datestamp>1244833680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm interested in how this is going to further web development and online collaboration.</p><p>It seems to be a wiki like simplified database.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm interested in how this is going to further web development and online collaboration.It seems to be a wiki like simplified database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm interested in how this is going to further web development and online collaboration.It seems to be a wiki like simplified database.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312119</id>
	<title>Re:Worst nightmare indeed</title>
	<author>robot\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1244836740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You must be immune.  I've been feeling ill all day.  An least now I know why.<br> <br>

Damn you, n-Cubes!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be immune .
I 've been feeling ill all day .
An least now I know why .
Damn you , n-Cubes !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be immune.
I've been feeling ill all day.
An least now I know why.
Damn you, n-Cubes!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311635</id>
	<title>Re:Um... what?</title>
	<author>WarwickRyan</author>
	<datestamp>1244835000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes and no.</p><p>What they're describing what I'd describe as an OLAP 2.0.  They're taking similar capabilities (central data store, cubed data) and combining them with user generated content, sharing and the cloud.</p><p>The system looks extremely similar to an BI system.</p><p>I'd make an counter point to TFA: I actually think that this is probablly Business Objects / Microstrategy / Cognos's biggest dream: the system shows the power that effectively BI can provide an business with data which is effectively shared and public.</p><p>Google are making their business case: give vendor lots-of-money and they can gain the capability over your own data, but in an nicely managable manner (so your competitors won't be getting access to it).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and no.What they 're describing what I 'd describe as an OLAP 2.0 .
They 're taking similar capabilities ( central data store , cubed data ) and combining them with user generated content , sharing and the cloud.The system looks extremely similar to an BI system.I 'd make an counter point to TFA : I actually think that this is probablly Business Objects / Microstrategy / Cognos 's biggest dream : the system shows the power that effectively BI can provide an business with data which is effectively shared and public.Google are making their business case : give vendor lots-of-money and they can gain the capability over your own data , but in an nicely managable manner ( so your competitors wo n't be getting access to it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and no.What they're describing what I'd describe as an OLAP 2.0.
They're taking similar capabilities (central data store, cubed data) and combining them with user generated content, sharing and the cloud.The system looks extremely similar to an BI system.I'd make an counter point to TFA: I actually think that this is probablly Business Objects / Microstrategy / Cognos's biggest dream: the system shows the power that effectively BI can provide an business with data which is effectively shared and public.Google are making their business case: give vendor lots-of-money and they can gain the capability over your own data, but in an nicely managable manner (so your competitors won't be getting access to it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311205</id>
	<title>yeah, but.....</title>
	<author>OutOnARock</author>
	<datestamp>1244833320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
Will they do no evil as they scan every data element on the planet?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will they do no evil as they scan every data element on the planet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Will they do no evil as they scan every data element on the planet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311521</id>
	<title>Sorry Google</title>
	<author>DetpackJump</author>
	<datestamp>1244834520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless you add fifth dimensional monkeys, you just aren't cool anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you add fifth dimensional monkeys , you just are n't cool anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you add fifth dimensional monkeys, you just aren't cool anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311681</id>
	<title>Somebody is a bit prone to hyperbole</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244835180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a funny feeling Oracle, DB2, and MS SQL executives aren't exactly quivering in abject terror at the idea of a database with "a third coordinate with elements like product reviews, blog posts, Twitter messages and the like."</p><p>"Real time updates" are a new feature (and a "fourth dimension")?  That's news to me... I thought batch-only updates went out with punchcards.</p><p>I'm pretty sure this Google thing has some interesting features, but I am equally sure that it has nothing to do with the buzzword-stuff from that marketing drone/"IT Consultant."</p><p>SirWired</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a funny feeling Oracle , DB2 , and MS SQL executives are n't exactly quivering in abject terror at the idea of a database with " a third coordinate with elements like product reviews , blog posts , Twitter messages and the like .
" " Real time updates " are a new feature ( and a " fourth dimension " ) ?
That 's news to me... I thought batch-only updates went out with punchcards.I 'm pretty sure this Google thing has some interesting features , but I am equally sure that it has nothing to do with the buzzword-stuff from that marketing drone/ " IT Consultant .
" SirWired</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a funny feeling Oracle, DB2, and MS SQL executives aren't exactly quivering in abject terror at the idea of a database with "a third coordinate with elements like product reviews, blog posts, Twitter messages and the like.
""Real time updates" are a new feature (and a "fourth dimension")?
That's news to me... I thought batch-only updates went out with punchcards.I'm pretty sure this Google thing has some interesting features, but I am equally sure that it has nothing to do with the buzzword-stuff from that marketing drone/"IT Consultant.
"SirWired</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312535</id>
	<title>This is significant news for industry insiders...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244838180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nearly 100\% of the pundits commenting on this story are as ignorant as the submitter. This is significant news and it's extremely problematic for a large number of industry stalwarts. That the submitter had no clue and over-hyped the wrong points is besides the point... and on par for a Slashdot submission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nearly 100 \ % of the pundits commenting on this story are as ignorant as the submitter .
This is significant news and it 's extremely problematic for a large number of industry stalwarts .
That the submitter had no clue and over-hyped the wrong points is besides the point... and on par for a Slashdot submission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nearly 100\% of the pundits commenting on this story are as ignorant as the submitter.
This is significant news and it's extremely problematic for a large number of industry stalwarts.
That the submitter had no clue and over-hyped the wrong points is besides the point... and on par for a Slashdot submission.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311497</id>
	<title>Re:Um... what?</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1244834460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, just add one attribute to every table, and now you have a new "dimension." Big freaking woop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , just add one attribute to every table , and now you have a new " dimension .
" Big freaking woop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, just add one attribute to every table, and now you have a new "dimension.
" Big freaking woop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311719</id>
	<title>Re:red?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244835300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The color in which Google posts are presented is related to the current status of Google's "do no evil" motto.
<br>
Red implifies that the google software is now on the verge of becoming self-aware and we should be getting very afraid.
<br> <br>
Apparently this new database was the final drop. When it gets out of beta the world as we know it will seize to exist.
<br> <br>
Have a nice day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The color in which Google posts are presented is related to the current status of Google 's " do no evil " motto .
Red implifies that the google software is now on the verge of becoming self-aware and we should be getting very afraid .
Apparently this new database was the final drop .
When it gets out of beta the world as we know it will seize to exist .
Have a nice day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The color in which Google posts are presented is related to the current status of Google's "do no evil" motto.
Red implifies that the google software is now on the verge of becoming self-aware and we should be getting very afraid.
Apparently this new database was the final drop.
When it gets out of beta the world as we know it will seize to exist.
Have a nice day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311413</id>
	<title>Worst nightmare indeed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244834100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Twitter coordinates, n-Cubes, and four-dimensional spaces... in a cloud?</p><p>Gee... I'm glad it's not possible to die from a hype overdose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Twitter coordinates , n-Cubes , and four-dimensional spaces... in a cloud ? Gee... I 'm glad it 's not possible to die from a hype overdose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Twitter coordinates, n-Cubes, and four-dimensional spaces... in a cloud?Gee... I'm glad it's not possible to die from a hype overdose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28317651</id>
	<title>"n-cube"?</title>
	<author>Metasquares</author>
	<datestamp>1244832060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other words, Google is yet another organization jumping on the tensor mining bandwagon prior to assessing its merits and pitfalls? If they're using the same algorithms I think they're using, Google is going to have a heck of a time with the efficiency, considering the scale of their dataset. The 502 error I get when I attempt to access it isn't encouraging either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , Google is yet another organization jumping on the tensor mining bandwagon prior to assessing its merits and pitfalls ?
If they 're using the same algorithms I think they 're using , Google is going to have a heck of a time with the efficiency , considering the scale of their dataset .
The 502 error I get when I attempt to access it is n't encouraging either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, Google is yet another organization jumping on the tensor mining bandwagon prior to assessing its merits and pitfalls?
If they're using the same algorithms I think they're using, Google is going to have a heck of a time with the efficiency, considering the scale of their dataset.
The 502 error I get when I attempt to access it isn't encouraging either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313625</id>
	<title>time for Dynamic Relational</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244798880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/dynrelat.htm" title="geocities.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/dynrelat.htm</a> [geocities.com]<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.geocities.com/tablizer/dynrelat.htm [ geocities.com ]    </tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/dynrelat.htm [geocities.com]
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311203</id>
	<title>Oh My!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244833320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clouds and Databases Oh My! First Post?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clouds and Databases Oh My !
First Post ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clouds and Databases Oh My!
First Post?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311679</id>
	<title>Quaternions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244835180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Before long we'll be using them in queries I suppose...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before long we 'll be using them in queries I suppose.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before long we'll be using them in queries I suppose...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312229</id>
	<title>Oh No!</title>
	<author>jcjones1515</author>
	<datestamp>1244837160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is an awful article.  Sadly it takes away from what could be a pretty useful competitor to MS Access.

<a href="http://realjavasoa.blogspot.com/2009/06/google-fusion-tables-vs-oracle-duh.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://realjavasoa.blogspot.com/2009/06/google-fusion-tables-vs-oracle-duh.html</a> [blogspot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an awful article .
Sadly it takes away from what could be a pretty useful competitor to MS Access .
http : //realjavasoa.blogspot.com/2009/06/google-fusion-tables-vs-oracle-duh.html [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an awful article.
Sadly it takes away from what could be a pretty useful competitor to MS Access.
http://realjavasoa.blogspot.com/2009/06/google-fusion-tables-vs-oracle-duh.html [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28316369</id>
	<title>convert your Oracle DB to the new n-cube google DB</title>
	<author>tommeke100</author>
	<datestamp>1244816580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>for all Tables add new column("product reviews, blog posts, Twitter messages and the like");<br> <br>

<i>"and in that space we can now do new kinds of queries which create new kinds of products and new market opportunities"</i>
<br> <br>
I'd love to see the query that creates new products and market opportunities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>for all Tables add new column ( " product reviews , blog posts , Twitter messages and the like " ) ; " and in that space we can now do new kinds of queries which create new kinds of products and new market opportunities " I 'd love to see the query that creates new products and market opportunities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for all Tables add new column("product reviews, blog posts, Twitter messages and the like"); 

"and in that space we can now do new kinds of queries which create new kinds of products and new market opportunities"
 
I'd love to see the query that creates new products and market opportunities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311815</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Google</title>
	<author>localman57</author>
	<datestamp>1244835660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know about that, but I did see the newly formed super-group <i>The Fifth-Dimensonal <b>Monkees</b> </i> some time back.  They did a mashup of "I'm a Believer" and "Age of Aquarius".  Really, really horrible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about that , but I did see the newly formed super-group The Fifth-Dimensonal Monkees some time back .
They did a mashup of " I 'm a Believer " and " Age of Aquarius " .
Really , really horrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about that, but I did see the newly formed super-group The Fifth-Dimensonal Monkees  some time back.
They did a mashup of "I'm a Believer" and "Age of Aquarius".
Really, really horrible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28345171</id>
	<title>This is a very smart development</title>
	<author>St.Creed</author>
	<datestamp>1245184440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a world wide, shared, annotated database with easy ways to join to other data and visualization tools built-in. Kudos to Google for implementing this.</p><p>
Apart from the monetization possibilities (of which there are plenty), you can now crowdsource datagathering easier than ever before.
</p><ul>
<li>All over the world there are ornithology clubs that count birds. Imagine everyone editing the same dataset (with history) and comments added etc.</li>
<li>Scientists doing research on the Mexican flue. Victim counts + added information could be part of the same shared dataset.</li>
</ul><p>
Also, databases can be pretty difficult to add to webpages (for consumers) because you need to know a few things about SQL etc. - it looks like this could provide structured data storage to more websites than ever before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a world wide , shared , annotated database with easy ways to join to other data and visualization tools built-in .
Kudos to Google for implementing this .
Apart from the monetization possibilities ( of which there are plenty ) , you can now crowdsource datagathering easier than ever before .
All over the world there are ornithology clubs that count birds .
Imagine everyone editing the same dataset ( with history ) and comments added etc .
Scientists doing research on the Mexican flue .
Victim counts + added information could be part of the same shared dataset .
Also , databases can be pretty difficult to add to webpages ( for consumers ) because you need to know a few things about SQL etc .
- it looks like this could provide structured data storage to more websites than ever before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a world wide, shared, annotated database with easy ways to join to other data and visualization tools built-in.
Kudos to Google for implementing this.
Apart from the monetization possibilities (of which there are plenty), you can now crowdsource datagathering easier than ever before.
All over the world there are ornithology clubs that count birds.
Imagine everyone editing the same dataset (with history) and comments added etc.
Scientists doing research on the Mexican flue.
Victim counts + added information could be part of the same shared dataset.
Also, databases can be pretty difficult to add to webpages (for consumers) because you need to know a few things about SQL etc.
- it looks like this could provide structured data storage to more websites than ever before.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311243</id>
	<title>Um... what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244833440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How's this three dimensional stuff not just plain old <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLAP" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">OLAP</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's this three dimensional stuff not just plain old OLAP [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's this three dimensional stuff not just plain old OLAP [wikipedia.org]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311233</id>
	<title>red?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244833440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does this post show up as red to me?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does this post show up as red to me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does this post show up as red to me?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28314449</id>
	<title>Re:Proprietary data?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244802720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The one I work for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The one I work for : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one I work for :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312087</id>
	<title>Re:Proprietary data?</title>
	<author>jambarama</author>
	<datestamp>1244836620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny you mention that, I saw <a href="http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1536414.1536440" title="acm.org">an article yesterday</a> [acm.org] which claims to have created an encryption scheme where encrypted data can be modified, written into, queried, and anything "that can be eciently expressed as a circuit" by a person without the decryption key.  <br> <br>If I'm reading the paper correctly, it would mean google could host data, and without having access to the data itself, could still permit user lookups and modifications.  Of course that doesn't allay concerns of 3rd party reliability, the encryption scheme is inefficient, and this method may not be robust enough to support the complexity of an sql query, but who knows if it wouldn't be possible in the future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny you mention that , I saw an article yesterday [ acm.org ] which claims to have created an encryption scheme where encrypted data can be modified , written into , queried , and anything " that can be eciently expressed as a circuit " by a person without the decryption key .
If I 'm reading the paper correctly , it would mean google could host data , and without having access to the data itself , could still permit user lookups and modifications .
Of course that does n't allay concerns of 3rd party reliability , the encryption scheme is inefficient , and this method may not be robust enough to support the complexity of an sql query , but who knows if it would n't be possible in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny you mention that, I saw an article yesterday [acm.org] which claims to have created an encryption scheme where encrypted data can be modified, written into, queried, and anything "that can be eciently expressed as a circuit" by a person without the decryption key.
If I'm reading the paper correctly, it would mean google could host data, and without having access to the data itself, could still permit user lookups and modifications.
Of course that doesn't allay concerns of 3rd party reliability, the encryption scheme is inefficient, and this method may not be robust enough to support the complexity of an sql query, but who knows if it wouldn't be possible in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313073</id>
	<title>Punch cards out??  Oh, no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244840040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank God Paper tape is still in!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank God Paper tape is still in !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank God Paper tape is still in!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312063</id>
	<title>Re:Merged?</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1244836560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes.  Their keystone product is now System Z Office DB.<br> <br>Have fun figuring out your licensing costs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
Their keystone product is now System Z Office DB .
Have fun figuring out your licensing costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
Their keystone product is now System Z Office DB.
Have fun figuring out your licensing costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313721</id>
	<title>time-cube</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1244799240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think they have just provided the final step for the time-cube solution to start the chain reaction that will end the earth.  <a href="http://www.timecube.com/" title="timecube.com">Ignore Cubic Math at your own peril, and of humanity.</a> [timecube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they have just provided the final step for the time-cube solution to start the chain reaction that will end the earth .
Ignore Cubic Math at your own peril , and of humanity .
[ timecube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they have just provided the final step for the time-cube solution to start the chain reaction that will end the earth.
Ignore Cubic Math at your own peril, and of humanity.
[timecube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311259</id>
	<title>Merged?</title>
	<author>againjj</author>
	<datestamp>1244833560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
'If you're IBM, Microsoft and Oracle, your worst nightmare is now visible.'
</p><p>
I didn't realize they had merged.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'If you 're IBM , Microsoft and Oracle , your worst nightmare is now visible .
' I did n't realize they had merged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
'If you're IBM, Microsoft and Oracle, your worst nightmare is now visible.
'

I didn't realize they had merged.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311753</id>
	<title>Re:Proprietary data?</title>
	<author>blhack</author>
	<datestamp>1244835420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google seems to be really great at taking a little tiny thing, doing it a couple billion times, and making a few cents off of every transaction.</p><p>My guess is that this is aimed more at individuals who are writing blogs and contact managers, not so much corporations with huge development teams and datacenters.</p><p>To answer your question: people that don't really think that their data is "top secret".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google seems to be really great at taking a little tiny thing , doing it a couple billion times , and making a few cents off of every transaction.My guess is that this is aimed more at individuals who are writing blogs and contact managers , not so much corporations with huge development teams and datacenters.To answer your question : people that do n't really think that their data is " top secret " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google seems to be really great at taking a little tiny thing, doing it a couple billion times, and making a few cents off of every transaction.My guess is that this is aimed more at individuals who are writing blogs and contact managers, not so much corporations with huge development teams and datacenters.To answer your question: people that don't really think that their data is "top secret".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311265</id>
	<title>Steve Jobs' reaction to the news:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244833560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm infected with AIDS,<br>
I fuck every day,<br>
I kill everything I fuck!<br> <br>

I fill you up with my disease,<br>
Contaminate you with deadly needs,<br>
My loaded cock is like a gun,<br>
I'm a walking time bomb killing everyone,<br> <br>



Let me be your stiff hard fuck,<br>
Cram your cunt with poisonous cock,<br>
Your hairy cunt will be my aim,<br>
Deadly penetration is my game,<br> <br>

Drenched in my fluids you'll never know,<br>
I plant the seed of death untold,<br>
Before I die, I hope I do,<br>
Kill many more, as I've killed you!<br> <br>
<i>-- Steve Jobs</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm infected with AIDS , I fuck every day , I kill everything I fuck !
I fill you up with my disease , Contaminate you with deadly needs , My loaded cock is like a gun , I 'm a walking time bomb killing everyone , Let me be your stiff hard fuck , Cram your cunt with poisonous cock , Your hairy cunt will be my aim , Deadly penetration is my game , Drenched in my fluids you 'll never know , I plant the seed of death untold , Before I die , I hope I do , Kill many more , as I 've killed you !
-- Steve Jobs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm infected with AIDS,
I fuck every day,
I kill everything I fuck!
I fill you up with my disease,
Contaminate you with deadly needs,
My loaded cock is like a gun,
I'm a walking time bomb killing everyone, 



Let me be your stiff hard fuck,
Cram your cunt with poisonous cock,
Your hairy cunt will be my aim,
Deadly penetration is my game, 

Drenched in my fluids you'll never know,
I plant the seed of death untold,
Before I die, I hope I do,
Kill many more, as I've killed you!
-- Steve Jobs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313997</id>
	<title>Re:Um... what?</title>
	<author>ghetto2ivy</author>
	<datestamp>1244800440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is. Man I need to borrow their marketing speak.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is .
Man I need to borrow their marketing speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is.
Man I need to borrow their marketing speak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28314421</id>
	<title>Re:Proprietary data?</title>
	<author>InsertWittyNameHere</author>
	<datestamp>1244802600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All Your dataBASE Are Belong To Us!</p><p>-Google</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All Your dataBASE Are Belong To Us ! -Google</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All Your dataBASE Are Belong To Us!-Google</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312441</id>
	<title>Re:Proprietary data?</title>
	<author>juanergie</author>
	<datestamp>1244837940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe at some point far back in the past people thought the same about banks: what person it its right mind will put the cash in someone else's safe?</p><p>It is a matter of time and technology; soon enough this type of clouds and outsourcing of IT infrastructure will be taken for granted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe at some point far back in the past people thought the same about banks : what person it its right mind will put the cash in someone else 's safe ? It is a matter of time and technology ; soon enough this type of clouds and outsourcing of IT infrastructure will be taken for granted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe at some point far back in the past people thought the same about banks: what person it its right mind will put the cash in someone else's safe?It is a matter of time and technology; soon enough this type of clouds and outsourcing of IT infrastructure will be taken for granted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313499</id>
	<title>Re:Proprietary data?</title>
	<author>dtoader</author>
	<datestamp>1244798460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What company?<br>
<br>
This is happening on a major scale in IT operations.<br>
<br>
If a you installed a third-party client application <br>
with a DB backend and are hosting the database locally, <br>
chances are the vendor is working on getting that out of <br>
your server room DB server and into their cloud data center.<br>
Your users will probably access the new system <br>
through a web interface.<br>
<br>
Anecdotally ADP has done this with their eTIMEsheet <br>
application. <br>
<br>
That which can be off-hosted will be.<br>
<br>
The reasoning is that it frees up personnel and cuts overhead.<br>
How it pans out in real life (cloud outages, data loss, etc.) is <br>
another story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What company ?
This is happening on a major scale in IT operations .
If a you installed a third-party client application with a DB backend and are hosting the database locally , chances are the vendor is working on getting that out of your server room DB server and into their cloud data center .
Your users will probably access the new system through a web interface .
Anecdotally ADP has done this with their eTIMEsheet application .
That which can be off-hosted will be .
The reasoning is that it frees up personnel and cuts overhead .
How it pans out in real life ( cloud outages , data loss , etc .
) is another story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What company?
This is happening on a major scale in IT operations.
If a you installed a third-party client application 
with a DB backend and are hosting the database locally, 
chances are the vendor is working on getting that out of 
your server room DB server and into their cloud data center.
Your users will probably access the new system 
through a web interface.
Anecdotally ADP has done this with their eTIMEsheet 
application.
That which can be off-hosted will be.
The reasoning is that it frees up personnel and cuts overhead.
How it pans out in real life (cloud outages, data loss, etc.
) is 
another story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311803</id>
	<title>Security Issue</title>
	<author>gubers33</author>
	<datestamp>1244835600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although clouds are the hot topic right now they are nothing new. The concept as been around since the 1960s with the timesharing model. Clouds are definitely the thing of the future, and cloud security is going along with that trend. It is not that clouds can't be secured like any other network, it is that they can't be tested as easily as every other network. I mean other companies are working on cloud storage as well, the big one being EMC with Atmos. It is an intriguing concept, but get the cloud secure enough to put confidential information in it will be the deal breaker.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although clouds are the hot topic right now they are nothing new .
The concept as been around since the 1960s with the timesharing model .
Clouds are definitely the thing of the future , and cloud security is going along with that trend .
It is not that clouds ca n't be secured like any other network , it is that they ca n't be tested as easily as every other network .
I mean other companies are working on cloud storage as well , the big one being EMC with Atmos .
It is an intriguing concept , but get the cloud secure enough to put confidential information in it will be the deal breaker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although clouds are the hot topic right now they are nothing new.
The concept as been around since the 1960s with the timesharing model.
Clouds are definitely the thing of the future, and cloud security is going along with that trend.
It is not that clouds can't be secured like any other network, it is that they can't be tested as easily as every other network.
I mean other companies are working on cloud storage as well, the big one being EMC with Atmos.
It is an intriguing concept, but get the cloud secure enough to put confidential information in it will be the deal breaker.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311273</id>
	<title>mdash</title>
	<author>despeaux</author>
	<datestamp>1244833620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like how the word "mdash" is in the URL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how the word " mdash " is in the URL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how the word "mdash" is in the URL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28314511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28314753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28314421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28333991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28345129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28314449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28315203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_12_1658206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1658206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311265
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1658206.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1658206.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311687
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1658206.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28345129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28314449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28314421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312087
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1658206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1658206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311205
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1658206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28314511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311815
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1658206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311531
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1658206.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1658206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1658206.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312687
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1658206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312213
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28314753
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1658206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311635
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311743
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28333991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311407
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1658206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311719
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312083
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1658206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28312535
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1658206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311373
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1658206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313073
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_12_1658206.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28311751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28313357
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_12_1658206.28315203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
