<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_20_2054229</id>
	<title>Plagiarism-Detection Software Confirms Shakespeare Play</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1256061900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:mi+slashdot@aldan.algebra.com" rel="nofollow">mi</a> tips us that software intended to help essay graders detect plagiarism has been used to <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091020/us\_time/08599193097100">attribute to Shakespeare</a> &mdash; with high probability &mdash; a hitherto unattributed play, 'The Reign of Edward III.' It seems that the work was co-authored by Shakespeare and another playwright of the time, Thomas Kyd. <i>"With a program called Pl@giarism, Vickers detected 200 strings of three or more words in 'Edward III' that matched phrases in Shakespeare's other works. Usually, works by two different authors will only have about 20 matching strings."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>mi tips us that software intended to help essay graders detect plagiarism has been used to attribute to Shakespeare    with high probability    a hitherto unattributed play , 'The Reign of Edward III .
' It seems that the work was co-authored by Shakespeare and another playwright of the time , Thomas Kyd .
" With a program called Pl @ giarism , Vickers detected 200 strings of three or more words in 'Edward III ' that matched phrases in Shakespeare 's other works .
Usually , works by two different authors will only have about 20 matching strings .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mi tips us that software intended to help essay graders detect plagiarism has been used to attribute to Shakespeare — with high probability — a hitherto unattributed play, 'The Reign of Edward III.
' It seems that the work was co-authored by Shakespeare and another playwright of the time, Thomas Kyd.
"With a program called Pl@giarism, Vickers detected 200 strings of three or more words in 'Edward III' that matched phrases in Shakespeare's other works.
Usually, works by two different authors will only have about 20 matching strings.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29821063</id>
	<title>Rubbish - example Terry Pratchett</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1256123700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same argument used to claim that Francis Bacon or Essex wrote the plays.<p>Now consider TP. Started in local journalism, worked in PR dfor the nuclear industry. Didn't have a classical education. Very successful author. Like WS, gets themes from all over the place, pastiches, parodies, makes them his own. TP is a "middlebrow" author. If you know the literature of the period, you will know the highbrow stuff - the stuff that would win Bookers nowadays - is almost unreadable today. Shakespeare was a popular playwright, not an intellectual.</p><p>In some future, people like you will be explaining that TP could never have written his books as he didn't go to Oxford and didn't live in London. So they must have been written by Will Self, or Martin Amis, when just messing around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same argument used to claim that Francis Bacon or Essex wrote the plays.Now consider TP .
Started in local journalism , worked in PR dfor the nuclear industry .
Did n't have a classical education .
Very successful author .
Like WS , gets themes from all over the place , pastiches , parodies , makes them his own .
TP is a " middlebrow " author .
If you know the literature of the period , you will know the highbrow stuff - the stuff that would win Bookers nowadays - is almost unreadable today .
Shakespeare was a popular playwright , not an intellectual.In some future , people like you will be explaining that TP could never have written his books as he did n't go to Oxford and did n't live in London .
So they must have been written by Will Self , or Martin Amis , when just messing around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same argument used to claim that Francis Bacon or Essex wrote the plays.Now consider TP.
Started in local journalism, worked in PR dfor the nuclear industry.
Didn't have a classical education.
Very successful author.
Like WS, gets themes from all over the place, pastiches, parodies, makes them his own.
TP is a "middlebrow" author.
If you know the literature of the period, you will know the highbrow stuff - the stuff that would win Bookers nowadays - is almost unreadable today.
Shakespeare was a popular playwright, not an intellectual.In some future, people like you will be explaining that TP could never have written his books as he didn't go to Oxford and didn't live in London.
So they must have been written by Will Self, or Martin Amis, when just messing around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820109</id>
	<title>Re:Stake Your Claim</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256067660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If only interviewers in the US would treat politicians as roughly! (yes ALL of them)</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only interviewers in the US would treat politicians as roughly !
( yes ALL of them )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only interviewers in the US would treat politicians as roughly!
(yes ALL of them)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29822093</id>
	<title>Re:Being pedantic</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1256132940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Shakespeare didn't write Old English. He actually wrote modern English.<br><br>No, he wrote early English.  It *is* English (unlike Old English, which is not the same language at all), but it is most definitely not the modern form thereof.<br><br>&gt; Old English is Anglo-Saxon.<br><br>Yes, that's right.  Actually, "Anglo-Saxon" is a much better name for it, because it's not really anything you would recognize as English.  It's much more closely related to Germanic and Scandinavian languages.<br><br>&gt; Even Chaucer wrote in English,<br><br>Chaucer wrote in Middle English, which is more similar to English than Old English is, but still most definitely not the same language.  In fact, English is less similar and less closely related to Middle English than French is to Latin.  The relationship to Old English is even more remote.<br><br>To get from Old English (Beowulf) to early English (Shakespeare) you have to stir in such generous quantities of loan words (mostly from French, Latin, and Greek) that fewer than 10\% of the words in the language trace their ancestry back to Old English.  You also have to make considerable adjustments to the morphology of the language, significantly alter the orthography (taking the basic spelling system apart and putting it back together differently), completely change the phonology of all the vowels and several of the consonants, alter the grammar in a number of significant ways, and run through several rounds of vulgarization (i.e., let the street lingo of the common people diverge so substantially from the written form of the language that it essentially becomes a creole, then get enough authors to start writing in the common language of the people that it becomes accepted in educated circles; rinse and repeat several times), among other things.<br><br>It's sort of like the relationship between Classical Latin and Haitian Kreyol, except that English has had a larger number of external influences on its vocabulary and grammar.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Shakespeare did n't write Old English .
He actually wrote modern English.No , he wrote early English .
It * is * English ( unlike Old English , which is not the same language at all ) , but it is most definitely not the modern form thereof. &gt; Old English is Anglo-Saxon.Yes , that 's right .
Actually , " Anglo-Saxon " is a much better name for it , because it 's not really anything you would recognize as English .
It 's much more closely related to Germanic and Scandinavian languages. &gt; Even Chaucer wrote in English,Chaucer wrote in Middle English , which is more similar to English than Old English is , but still most definitely not the same language .
In fact , English is less similar and less closely related to Middle English than French is to Latin .
The relationship to Old English is even more remote.To get from Old English ( Beowulf ) to early English ( Shakespeare ) you have to stir in such generous quantities of loan words ( mostly from French , Latin , and Greek ) that fewer than 10 \ % of the words in the language trace their ancestry back to Old English .
You also have to make considerable adjustments to the morphology of the language , significantly alter the orthography ( taking the basic spelling system apart and putting it back together differently ) , completely change the phonology of all the vowels and several of the consonants , alter the grammar in a number of significant ways , and run through several rounds of vulgarization ( i.e. , let the street lingo of the common people diverge so substantially from the written form of the language that it essentially becomes a creole , then get enough authors to start writing in the common language of the people that it becomes accepted in educated circles ; rinse and repeat several times ) , among other things.It 's sort of like the relationship between Classical Latin and Haitian Kreyol , except that English has had a larger number of external influences on its vocabulary and grammar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Shakespeare didn't write Old English.
He actually wrote modern English.No, he wrote early English.
It *is* English (unlike Old English, which is not the same language at all), but it is most definitely not the modern form thereof.&gt; Old English is Anglo-Saxon.Yes, that's right.
Actually, "Anglo-Saxon" is a much better name for it, because it's not really anything you would recognize as English.
It's much more closely related to Germanic and Scandinavian languages.&gt; Even Chaucer wrote in English,Chaucer wrote in Middle English, which is more similar to English than Old English is, but still most definitely not the same language.
In fact, English is less similar and less closely related to Middle English than French is to Latin.
The relationship to Old English is even more remote.To get from Old English (Beowulf) to early English (Shakespeare) you have to stir in such generous quantities of loan words (mostly from French, Latin, and Greek) that fewer than 10\% of the words in the language trace their ancestry back to Old English.
You also have to make considerable adjustments to the morphology of the language, significantly alter the orthography (taking the basic spelling system apart and putting it back together differently), completely change the phonology of all the vowels and several of the consonants, alter the grammar in a number of significant ways, and run through several rounds of vulgarization (i.e., let the street lingo of the common people diverge so substantially from the written form of the language that it essentially becomes a creole, then get enough authors to start writing in the common language of the people that it becomes accepted in educated circles; rinse and repeat several times), among other things.It's sort of like the relationship between Classical Latin and Haitian Kreyol, except that English has had a larger number of external influences on its vocabulary and grammar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29829805</id>
	<title>Re:Being pedantic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256125500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what are we writing now?</p><p>Post-modern English?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what are we writing now ? Post-modern English ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what are we writing now?Post-modern English?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820341</id>
	<title>DO NOT let Harlan Ellison hear about this software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256157540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, he's filed to many lawsuits as it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , he 's filed to many lawsuits as it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, he's filed to many lawsuits as it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29821325</id>
	<title>How reliable is this software?</title>
	<author>metrix007</author>
	<datestamp>1256126820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can only speak based on turnitin, but assume all of these services are similar in respects. I note that turnitin will often make mistakes, and is also incredibly easy to fool. Changing keywords, and sentence structure etc..., it is rather easy to rewrite the whole thing to avoid detection. Having seen it make mistakes because of stuff that actually was already written, and is conicdentally similar, I wonder how useful it is for text written hudnreds of years ago.</p><p>What if someone wnated to write in a shakespearian style, or genuinley had a similar style be default? What is the actual reliable indication that this poem was Shakespears?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can only speak based on turnitin , but assume all of these services are similar in respects .
I note that turnitin will often make mistakes , and is also incredibly easy to fool .
Changing keywords , and sentence structure etc... , it is rather easy to rewrite the whole thing to avoid detection .
Having seen it make mistakes because of stuff that actually was already written , and is conicdentally similar , I wonder how useful it is for text written hudnreds of years ago.What if someone wnated to write in a shakespearian style , or genuinley had a similar style be default ?
What is the actual reliable indication that this poem was Shakespears ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can only speak based on turnitin, but assume all of these services are similar in respects.
I note that turnitin will often make mistakes, and is also incredibly easy to fool.
Changing keywords, and sentence structure etc..., it is rather easy to rewrite the whole thing to avoid detection.
Having seen it make mistakes because of stuff that actually was already written, and is conicdentally similar, I wonder how useful it is for text written hudnreds of years ago.What if someone wnated to write in a shakespearian style, or genuinley had a similar style be default?
What is the actual reliable indication that this poem was Shakespears?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29827719</id>
	<title>Re: Not "unattributed"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256158440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the software didn't attribute the play to Shakespeare (and thus, if it didn't validate the scholars), there would be hell to pay. Scholars hate being proven wrong, especially by a stupid machine that didn't even go to school or appreciate fine wine and sonnets in springtime</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the software did n't attribute the play to Shakespeare ( and thus , if it did n't validate the scholars ) , there would be hell to pay .
Scholars hate being proven wrong , especially by a stupid machine that did n't even go to school or appreciate fine wine and sonnets in springtime</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the software didn't attribute the play to Shakespeare (and thus, if it didn't validate the scholars), there would be hell to pay.
Scholars hate being proven wrong, especially by a stupid machine that didn't even go to school or appreciate fine wine and sonnets in springtime</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29832277</id>
	<title>Re:Being pedantic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256152080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>though he was sometimes unsure as to how many esses to use.</p></div><p>Did he write 'S' or did he write 'F'?</p><p>
Thatf what I find hardeft. When I read it found like Daffy Duck!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>though he was sometimes unsure as to how many esses to use.Did he write 'S ' or did he write 'F ' ?
Thatf what I find hardeft .
When I read it found like Daffy Duck !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>though he was sometimes unsure as to how many esses to use.Did he write 'S' or did he write 'F'?
Thatf what I find hardeft.
When I read it found like Daffy Duck!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29830855</id>
	<title>Re:Divine inspiration</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256133600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or just simply look and see whether there is a single thing in there that couldn't have been written by a person from the Bronze Age.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or just simply look and see whether there is a single thing in there that could n't have been written by a person from the Bronze Age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or just simply look and see whether there is a single thing in there that couldn't have been written by a person from the Bronze Age.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29834639</id>
	<title>platgiarism</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1256223240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>seems like a dumb name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>seems like a dumb name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seems like a dumb name.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29819969</id>
	<title>So what they're saying is that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256066100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... Shakespeare <i>plagiarized himself</i>?  Stop the presses!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... Shakespeare plagiarized himself ?
Stop the presses !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Shakespeare plagiarized himself?
Stop the presses!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820011</id>
	<title>Stake Your Claim</title>
	<author>HouseOfMisterE</author>
	<datestamp>1256066520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Game Show Host (John Cleese): Good evening and welcome to Stake Your Claim. First this evening we have Mr Norman Voles of Gravesend who claims he wrote all Shakespeare's works. Mr Voles, I understand you claim that you wrote all those plays normally attributed to Shakespeare?</p><p>Voles (Michael Palin): That is correct. I wrote all his plays and my wife and I wrote his sonnets.</p><p>Host: Mr Voles, these plays are known to have been performed in the early 17th century. How old are you, Mr Voles?</p><p>Voles: 43.</p><p>Host: Well, how is it possible for you to have written plays performed over 300 years before you were born?</p><p>Voles: Ah well. This is where my claim falls to the ground.</p><p>Host: Ah!</p><p>Voles: There's no possible way of answering that argument, I'm afraid. I was only hoping you would not make that particular point, but I can see you're more than a match for me!</p><p>Host: Mr Voles, thank you very much for coming along.</p><p>Voles: My pleasure.</p><p>Host: Next we have Mr Bill Wymiss who claims to have built the Taj Mahal.</p><p>Wymiss (Eric Idle): No.</p><p>Host: I'm sorry?</p><p>Wymiss: No. No.</p><p>Host: I thought you cla...</p><p>Wymiss: Well I did but I can see I won't last a minute with you.</p><p>Host: Next...</p><p>Wymiss: I was right!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Game Show Host ( John Cleese ) : Good evening and welcome to Stake Your Claim .
First this evening we have Mr Norman Voles of Gravesend who claims he wrote all Shakespeare 's works .
Mr Voles , I understand you claim that you wrote all those plays normally attributed to Shakespeare ? Voles ( Michael Palin ) : That is correct .
I wrote all his plays and my wife and I wrote his sonnets.Host : Mr Voles , these plays are known to have been performed in the early 17th century .
How old are you , Mr Voles ? Voles : 43.Host : Well , how is it possible for you to have written plays performed over 300 years before you were born ? Voles : Ah well .
This is where my claim falls to the ground.Host : Ah ! Voles : There 's no possible way of answering that argument , I 'm afraid .
I was only hoping you would not make that particular point , but I can see you 're more than a match for me ! Host : Mr Voles , thank you very much for coming along.Voles : My pleasure.Host : Next we have Mr Bill Wymiss who claims to have built the Taj Mahal.Wymiss ( Eric Idle ) : No.Host : I 'm sorry ? Wymiss : No .
No.Host : I thought you cla...Wymiss : Well I did but I can see I wo n't last a minute with you.Host : Next...Wymiss : I was right !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Game Show Host (John Cleese): Good evening and welcome to Stake Your Claim.
First this evening we have Mr Norman Voles of Gravesend who claims he wrote all Shakespeare's works.
Mr Voles, I understand you claim that you wrote all those plays normally attributed to Shakespeare?Voles (Michael Palin): That is correct.
I wrote all his plays and my wife and I wrote his sonnets.Host: Mr Voles, these plays are known to have been performed in the early 17th century.
How old are you, Mr Voles?Voles: 43.Host: Well, how is it possible for you to have written plays performed over 300 years before you were born?Voles: Ah well.
This is where my claim falls to the ground.Host: Ah!Voles: There's no possible way of answering that argument, I'm afraid.
I was only hoping you would not make that particular point, but I can see you're more than a match for me!Host: Mr Voles, thank you very much for coming along.Voles: My pleasure.Host: Next we have Mr Bill Wymiss who claims to have built the Taj Mahal.Wymiss (Eric Idle): No.Host: I'm sorry?Wymiss: No.
No.Host: I thought you cla...Wymiss: Well I did but I can see I won't last a minute with you.Host: Next...Wymiss: I was right!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29819945</id>
	<title>Phony</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1256065740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the evidence continues to mount against him.  All lies!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the evidence continues to mount against him .
All lies !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the evidence continues to mount against him.
All lies!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29819959</id>
	<title>Umm</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1256065920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
A human analyst looking for similarities never noticed many strings in common, over 500 years?  How could that be?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A human analyst looking for similarities never noticed many strings in common , over 500 years ?
How could that be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
A human analyst looking for similarities never noticed many strings in common, over 500 years?
How could that be?
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29822519</id>
	<title>Obligatory Doctor Who Reference</title>
	<author>riboch</author>
	<datestamp>1256135520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are there no comments about Doctor Who and the Carrionites?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are there no comments about Doctor Who and the Carrionites ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are there no comments about Doctor Who and the Carrionites?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29825647</id>
	<title>Re:Being pedantic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256149980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as we are being pedantic, he did say "old English" and not "Old English". Without the capital O, I would take that as just being older Modern English.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as we are being pedantic , he did say " old English " and not " Old English " .
Without the capital O , I would take that as just being older Modern English .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as we are being pedantic, he did say "old English" and not "Old English".
Without the capital O, I would take that as just being older Modern English.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820141</id>
	<title>Divine inspiration</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1256068200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another use would be to apply the algorithms to religious books to reveal which parts were really inspired by a divinity, and which parts were simply invented by some random, power hungry, con man, to control his peers.</p><p>They could call it Bl@sphemy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another use would be to apply the algorithms to religious books to reveal which parts were really inspired by a divinity , and which parts were simply invented by some random , power hungry , con man , to control his peers.They could call it Bl @ sphemy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another use would be to apply the algorithms to religious books to reveal which parts were really inspired by a divinity, and which parts were simply invented by some random, power hungry, con man, to control his peers.They could call it Bl@sphemy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29826537</id>
	<title>Must have been Shakespeare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256153280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The software analysis found only two words not used elsewhere by Shakespeare: "thermonuclear" and "jazzercise".</p><p>(Careful analysis of this post reveals that it was plagiarized from "Culture Made Stupid", by Tom Weller.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The software analysis found only two words not used elsewhere by Shakespeare : " thermonuclear " and " jazzercise " .
( Careful analysis of this post reveals that it was plagiarized from " Culture Made Stupid " , by Tom Weller .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The software analysis found only two words not used elsewhere by Shakespeare: "thermonuclear" and "jazzercise".
(Careful analysis of this post reveals that it was plagiarized from "Culture Made Stupid", by Tom Weller.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820835</id>
	<title>Re:Now Try This</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1256121180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that or he plagiarized portions of it from more than one person.  Which brings up another question; how does the software handle quotes from other authors?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that or he plagiarized portions of it from more than one person .
Which brings up another question ; how does the software handle quotes from other authors ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that or he plagiarized portions of it from more than one person.
Which brings up another question; how does the software handle quotes from other authors?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820759</id>
	<title>Oh the geekery</title>
	<author>TheReal\_sabret00the</author>
	<datestamp>1256119980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every vague and vaguely funny Shakespeare reference under the sun. I'm so LUCKY!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every vague and vaguely funny Shakespeare reference under the sun .
I 'm so LUCKY !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every vague and vaguely funny Shakespeare reference under the sun.
I'm so LUCKY!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820221</id>
	<title>Not "unattributed"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256156280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This play has been widely attributed to Shakespeare by Shakespeare scholars for some time.  It already appears in the Oxford Complete Works, the New Cambridge Shakespeare, and (my favorite) the Riverside Shakespeare.</p><p>Nothing is ever definitive in this line of work, so it's interesting to have the software weigh in on it.  But I don't think any scholars would be changing their minds if it didn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This play has been widely attributed to Shakespeare by Shakespeare scholars for some time .
It already appears in the Oxford Complete Works , the New Cambridge Shakespeare , and ( my favorite ) the Riverside Shakespeare.Nothing is ever definitive in this line of work , so it 's interesting to have the software weigh in on it .
But I do n't think any scholars would be changing their minds if it did n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This play has been widely attributed to Shakespeare by Shakespeare scholars for some time.
It already appears in the Oxford Complete Works, the New Cambridge Shakespeare, and (my favorite) the Riverside Shakespeare.Nothing is ever definitive in this line of work, so it's interesting to have the software weigh in on it.
But I don't think any scholars would be changing their minds if it didn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29829493</id>
	<title>Re:Now Try This</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256123400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a nice conspiracy theory you have there.  I wouldn't submit it to a server, but if you have software for me to download, for use on my own prose, I can see if it has any merit whatsoever.  In fact, I'm almost 100\% sure that I can find two e-mails written with wildly different styles, written at different times, in different moods, with diffeerent pressures and stations in life, etc, as my situation has changed a lot.  If the software doesn't say two different people wrote any of my wildly different prose samples, maybe you have a point.  Otherwise I think you should kindly stfukthx.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a nice conspiracy theory you have there .
I would n't submit it to a server , but if you have software for me to download , for use on my own prose , I can see if it has any merit whatsoever .
In fact , I 'm almost 100 \ % sure that I can find two e-mails written with wildly different styles , written at different times , in different moods , with diffeerent pressures and stations in life , etc , as my situation has changed a lot .
If the software does n't say two different people wrote any of my wildly different prose samples , maybe you have a point .
Otherwise I think you should kindly stfukthx .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a nice conspiracy theory you have there.
I wouldn't submit it to a server, but if you have software for me to download, for use on my own prose, I can see if it has any merit whatsoever.
In fact, I'm almost 100\% sure that I can find two e-mails written with wildly different styles, written at different times, in different moods, with diffeerent pressures and stations in life, etc, as my situation has changed a lot.
If the software doesn't say two different people wrote any of my wildly different prose samples, maybe you have a point.
Otherwise I think you should kindly stfukthx.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820129</id>
	<title>Not what the software was designed for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256068020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This software is for detecting plagiarism. In the situation it is designed for, one person uses another person's work but tries not to reveal the fact. The program catches this by noting that the pieces of writing are too similar. If it's well-designed, then it is good at this task, so it should be reasonably sensitive to similarity.</p><p>The "authentication" scenario described in TFA is very different. Assume the play is fake (written by someone pretending to be Shakespeare). Then it is not a case of one person using another person's work and trying to conceal that, but rather one person <i>imitating</i> another person's work. If the program is sensitive to similarity, it might be easy to fool into giving a false positive. We really don't know. In order to tell, we would have to ask some people to deliberately write fake Shakespearean works and see how the program scores those.</p><p>Until we have more data on how the software performs at THIS task, rather than the plagiarism-detection task, I'll still be skeptical about the provenance of <i>Edward III</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This software is for detecting plagiarism .
In the situation it is designed for , one person uses another person 's work but tries not to reveal the fact .
The program catches this by noting that the pieces of writing are too similar .
If it 's well-designed , then it is good at this task , so it should be reasonably sensitive to similarity.The " authentication " scenario described in TFA is very different .
Assume the play is fake ( written by someone pretending to be Shakespeare ) .
Then it is not a case of one person using another person 's work and trying to conceal that , but rather one person imitating another person 's work .
If the program is sensitive to similarity , it might be easy to fool into giving a false positive .
We really do n't know .
In order to tell , we would have to ask some people to deliberately write fake Shakespearean works and see how the program scores those.Until we have more data on how the software performs at THIS task , rather than the plagiarism-detection task , I 'll still be skeptical about the provenance of Edward III .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This software is for detecting plagiarism.
In the situation it is designed for, one person uses another person's work but tries not to reveal the fact.
The program catches this by noting that the pieces of writing are too similar.
If it's well-designed, then it is good at this task, so it should be reasonably sensitive to similarity.The "authentication" scenario described in TFA is very different.
Assume the play is fake (written by someone pretending to be Shakespeare).
Then it is not a case of one person using another person's work and trying to conceal that, but rather one person imitating another person's work.
If the program is sensitive to similarity, it might be easy to fool into giving a false positive.
We really don't know.
In order to tell, we would have to ask some people to deliberately write fake Shakespearean works and see how the program scores those.Until we have more data on how the software performs at THIS task, rather than the plagiarism-detection task, I'll still be skeptical about the provenance of Edward III.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820441</id>
	<title>Re:!confirmed</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1256115660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, seeing as Shakespeare insists on remaining dead (and has indeed done so for almost four hundred years), I would venture to suggest that it's unlikely you're ever going to get a 100\% guaranteed dead-cert answer to the question from a primary source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , seeing as Shakespeare insists on remaining dead ( and has indeed done so for almost four hundred years ) , I would venture to suggest that it 's unlikely you 're ever going to get a 100 \ % guaranteed dead-cert answer to the question from a primary source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, seeing as Shakespeare insists on remaining dead (and has indeed done so for almost four hundred years), I would venture to suggest that it's unlikely you're ever going to get a 100\% guaranteed dead-cert answer to the question from a primary source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29821931</id>
	<title>Except of course...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1256131740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Usually, works by two different authors will only have about 20 matching strings<br>Except of course when you compare nsync to backstreet boys, and then you<br>get 20,000 matching strings.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Usually , works by two different authors will only have about 20 matching stringsExcept of course when you compare nsync to backstreet boys , and then youget 20,000 matching strings .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Usually, works by two different authors will only have about 20 matching stringsExcept of course when you compare nsync to backstreet boys, and then youget 20,000 matching strings.
:P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820047</id>
	<title>I plagiarized Shakespeare too!</title>
	<author>Renderer of Evil</author>
	<datestamp>1256066880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in college I briefly took a creative writing course which was filled with snobs clutching their leatherbound Infinite Jest copies who used words like "perspectival" and "serendipitous."</p><p>During one of the meetings the lecture focused on poetic expression with an emphasis on sonnets. Homework consisted of writing an <i>abab, cdcd, efef, gg</i> sonnet and reading it outloud to the circle of douchebags who then offered their opinions about the piece. Being an industrious person, I applied my murky understanding of F/OSS principles to the fine craft of poetic expression and forked one of Shakespeare's obscure sonnets, changing some archaic words into more modern form.</p><p>I got a round of faint applause then dropped the class 2 weeks later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in college I briefly took a creative writing course which was filled with snobs clutching their leatherbound Infinite Jest copies who used words like " perspectival " and " serendipitous .
" During one of the meetings the lecture focused on poetic expression with an emphasis on sonnets .
Homework consisted of writing an abab , cdcd , efef , gg sonnet and reading it outloud to the circle of douchebags who then offered their opinions about the piece .
Being an industrious person , I applied my murky understanding of F/OSS principles to the fine craft of poetic expression and forked one of Shakespeare 's obscure sonnets , changing some archaic words into more modern form.I got a round of faint applause then dropped the class 2 weeks later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in college I briefly took a creative writing course which was filled with snobs clutching their leatherbound Infinite Jest copies who used words like "perspectival" and "serendipitous.
"During one of the meetings the lecture focused on poetic expression with an emphasis on sonnets.
Homework consisted of writing an abab, cdcd, efef, gg sonnet and reading it outloud to the circle of douchebags who then offered their opinions about the piece.
Being an industrious person, I applied my murky understanding of F/OSS principles to the fine craft of poetic expression and forked one of Shakespeare's obscure sonnets, changing some archaic words into more modern form.I got a round of faint applause then dropped the class 2 weeks later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29822805</id>
	<title>Bacon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256136840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Francis Baconnnnn</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Francis Baconnnnn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Francis Baconnnnn</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820403</id>
	<title>Re:Divine inspiration</title>
	<author>brentonboy</author>
	<datestamp>1256158380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a seminary student, and though you joke, the biblical studies students I mentioned this too all got really excited and started drooling. I am sure that tools like these will be applied to the Bible soon, though I actually doubt that it will really shed any additional light, since people have been comparing similar phrases and words in the bible for so long. Would be interesting to see if a computer comes up with the same JEDP authors though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a seminary student , and though you joke , the biblical studies students I mentioned this too all got really excited and started drooling .
I am sure that tools like these will be applied to the Bible soon , though I actually doubt that it will really shed any additional light , since people have been comparing similar phrases and words in the bible for so long .
Would be interesting to see if a computer comes up with the same JEDP authors though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a seminary student, and though you joke, the biblical studies students I mentioned this too all got really excited and started drooling.
I am sure that tools like these will be applied to the Bible soon, though I actually doubt that it will really shed any additional light, since people have been comparing similar phrases and words in the bible for so long.
Would be interesting to see if a computer comes up with the same JEDP authors though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820709</id>
	<title>Re:Now Try This</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256119200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Split the work into 2 parts, one with paragraph reading level ratings greater than the overall score, one with the scores less than overall.</p></div><p> This where the bias is introduced. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Split the work into 2 parts , one with paragraph reading level ratings greater than the overall score , one with the scores less than overall .
This where the bias is introduced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Split the work into 2 parts, one with paragraph reading level ratings greater than the overall score, one with the scores less than overall.
This where the bias is introduced. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29821967</id>
	<title>Re:!confirmed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256131980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah.  I mean, how do we know that this plagiarism detection software actually works?  They're trying to sell us on it by claiming that it "proves" some disputed historical claim?</p><p>Sorry, but you're supposed to give the proof that it works *first* before going around claiming to have "proven" things with it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
I mean , how do we know that this plagiarism detection software actually works ?
They 're trying to sell us on it by claiming that it " proves " some disputed historical claim ? Sorry , but you 're supposed to give the proof that it works * first * before going around claiming to have " proven " things with it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
I mean, how do we know that this plagiarism detection software actually works?
They're trying to sell us on it by claiming that it "proves" some disputed historical claim?Sorry, but you're supposed to give the proof that it works *first* before going around claiming to have "proven" things with it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820407</id>
	<title>Authorship verification</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256158380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Authorship Verification. I was exposed to this while I was working on an independent study project. It's Interesting. It tries to create a model from different features more based on word usage than direct grammatical analysis, but as it eliminates key features the relations follow a certain pattern that more accurately represents the author than using features directly.</p><p>http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1015448</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Authorship Verification .
I was exposed to this while I was working on an independent study project .
It 's Interesting .
It tries to create a model from different features more based on word usage than direct grammatical analysis , but as it eliminates key features the relations follow a certain pattern that more accurately represents the author than using features directly.http : //portal.acm.org/citation.cfm ? id = 1015448</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Authorship Verification.
I was exposed to this while I was working on an independent study project.
It's Interesting.
It tries to create a model from different features more based on word usage than direct grammatical analysis, but as it eliminates key features the relations follow a certain pattern that more accurately represents the author than using features directly.http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1015448</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29823877</id>
	<title>Re:Screen Writers</title>
	<author>Lord Kano</author>
	<datestamp>1256142420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was a successful(commercially) model for quite a long time, do you blame Hollywood for copying?</p><p>LK</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was a successful ( commercially ) model for quite a long time , do you blame Hollywood for copying ? LK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was a successful(commercially) model for quite a long time, do you blame Hollywood for copying?LK</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820315</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>jfengel</author>
	<datestamp>1256157240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Getting access to the play was easy: admission was a penny.  They most certainly did go to each other's works and steal phrases from each other.  Shakespeare clearly cribbed from Marlowe, among others.</p><p>They stole stories from each other all the time. Stories were considered common property.  Trying to protect them would seem as absurd as many Slashdotters consider software patents.</p><p>But they were fairly protective of the play as a whole.  There was just one master copy, and each actor would get a copy literally of his lines, plus the cue that came before each.  Saved copying expenses (it's not like they had a xerox) and also protected the plays.  And those cue sheets were treated as secrets.</p><p>Eventually the play would be published (and performed without royalties), but Edward III was published fairly early in Shakespeare's career, and it would be hard to gather up enough material from the previously printed plays to make up a new one attributable to Shakespeare.</p><p>Attribution is more art than science, and attempts to do it with software are pretty controversial.  Just because this software agrees with the experts this time doesn't fill me with confidence about the software.</p><p>I've looked at it myself, and it definitely fits in with Shakespeare's other early history plays.  But it's not his best work.  It has a few genuinely good scenes, and it deserves to be studied with the rest of the canon, but it's not exactly Hamlet or Richard III.  I doubt most people will ever see it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting access to the play was easy : admission was a penny .
They most certainly did go to each other 's works and steal phrases from each other .
Shakespeare clearly cribbed from Marlowe , among others.They stole stories from each other all the time .
Stories were considered common property .
Trying to protect them would seem as absurd as many Slashdotters consider software patents.But they were fairly protective of the play as a whole .
There was just one master copy , and each actor would get a copy literally of his lines , plus the cue that came before each .
Saved copying expenses ( it 's not like they had a xerox ) and also protected the plays .
And those cue sheets were treated as secrets.Eventually the play would be published ( and performed without royalties ) , but Edward III was published fairly early in Shakespeare 's career , and it would be hard to gather up enough material from the previously printed plays to make up a new one attributable to Shakespeare.Attribution is more art than science , and attempts to do it with software are pretty controversial .
Just because this software agrees with the experts this time does n't fill me with confidence about the software.I 've looked at it myself , and it definitely fits in with Shakespeare 's other early history plays .
But it 's not his best work .
It has a few genuinely good scenes , and it deserves to be studied with the rest of the canon , but it 's not exactly Hamlet or Richard III .
I doubt most people will ever see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting access to the play was easy: admission was a penny.
They most certainly did go to each other's works and steal phrases from each other.
Shakespeare clearly cribbed from Marlowe, among others.They stole stories from each other all the time.
Stories were considered common property.
Trying to protect them would seem as absurd as many Slashdotters consider software patents.But they were fairly protective of the play as a whole.
There was just one master copy, and each actor would get a copy literally of his lines, plus the cue that came before each.
Saved copying expenses (it's not like they had a xerox) and also protected the plays.
And those cue sheets were treated as secrets.Eventually the play would be published (and performed without royalties), but Edward III was published fairly early in Shakespeare's career, and it would be hard to gather up enough material from the previously printed plays to make up a new one attributable to Shakespeare.Attribution is more art than science, and attempts to do it with software are pretty controversial.
Just because this software agrees with the experts this time doesn't fill me with confidence about the software.I've looked at it myself, and it definitely fits in with Shakespeare's other early history plays.
But it's not his best work.
It has a few genuinely good scenes, and it deserves to be studied with the rest of the canon, but it's not exactly Hamlet or Richard III.
I doubt most people will ever see it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29821747</id>
	<title>Who actually wrote his plays!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256130420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand. Haven't they run this software against all Shakespeare's plays to determine if Bacon (or whoever you prefer) wrote them? I mean no body is smart enough to completely change personalities when writing something. WOuldnt software like this show the consistency in writing between all the plays as well?<br>I would think this software could finally put to rest all the silliness about the Bard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand .
Have n't they run this software against all Shakespeare 's plays to determine if Bacon ( or whoever you prefer ) wrote them ?
I mean no body is smart enough to completely change personalities when writing something .
WOuldnt software like this show the consistency in writing between all the plays as well ? I would think this software could finally put to rest all the silliness about the Bard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand.
Haven't they run this software against all Shakespeare's plays to determine if Bacon (or whoever you prefer) wrote them?
I mean no body is smart enough to completely change personalities when writing something.
WOuldnt software like this show the consistency in writing between all the plays as well?I would think this software could finally put to rest all the silliness about the Bard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820019</id>
	<title>Homage?</title>
	<author>davidbofinger</author>
	<datestamp>1256066580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So they've found a play that has some of Shakespeare's pet phrases in it. How do we know Shakespeare wrote it? We need to be able to reject alternatives like someone plagiarising those phrases from Shakespeare, or  someone writing a deliberate homage of Shakespeare.

Something similar happens in linguistics, where you're trying to tell if two languages are related but you can't tell if a pair of words are cognates or borrowed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So they 've found a play that has some of Shakespeare 's pet phrases in it .
How do we know Shakespeare wrote it ?
We need to be able to reject alternatives like someone plagiarising those phrases from Shakespeare , or someone writing a deliberate homage of Shakespeare .
Something similar happens in linguistics , where you 're trying to tell if two languages are related but you ca n't tell if a pair of words are cognates or borrowed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they've found a play that has some of Shakespeare's pet phrases in it.
How do we know Shakespeare wrote it?
We need to be able to reject alternatives like someone plagiarising those phrases from Shakespeare, or  someone writing a deliberate homage of Shakespeare.
Something similar happens in linguistics, where you're trying to tell if two languages are related but you can't tell if a pair of words are cognates or borrowed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820055</id>
	<title>Units?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256067000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>works by two different authors will only have about 20 matching strings</p></div></blockquote><p>Shouldn't this be a function of the works length? Something like x matching strings per word squared? Otherwise it's not surprising that the number of matches between one work and many works would be greater than the expected number between one work and one work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>works by two different authors will only have about 20 matching stringsShould n't this be a function of the works length ?
Something like x matching strings per word squared ?
Otherwise it 's not surprising that the number of matches between one work and many works would be greater than the expected number between one work and one work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>works by two different authors will only have about 20 matching stringsShouldn't this be a function of the works length?
Something like x matching strings per word squared?
Otherwise it's not surprising that the number of matches between one work and many works would be greater than the expected number between one work and one work.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820463</id>
	<title>!(!confirmed)</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1256115900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was already widely believed that the play in question was at least partially written by Shakespeare.  In research, when an experiment produces evidence that accords with a theory, the correct term is to say that it "confirms" the theory.  It does not <i>prove</i> it, but it does <i>confirm</i> it.</p><p>The title uses the word precisely and accurately.  However, I suspect you're not clear on what the word "confirm" means in the context of an experiment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was already widely believed that the play in question was at least partially written by Shakespeare .
In research , when an experiment produces evidence that accords with a theory , the correct term is to say that it " confirms " the theory .
It does not prove it , but it does confirm it.The title uses the word precisely and accurately .
However , I suspect you 're not clear on what the word " confirm " means in the context of an experiment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was already widely believed that the play in question was at least partially written by Shakespeare.
In research, when an experiment produces evidence that accords with a theory, the correct term is to say that it "confirms" the theory.
It does not prove it, but it does confirm it.The title uses the word precisely and accurately.
However, I suspect you're not clear on what the word "confirm" means in the context of an experiment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820069</id>
	<title>I call bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256067120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a very unscientific study, with far more potentially meaningful variables than they have accounted for here.</p><p>For example, these matching strings could just as well be common turns of phrase of the day.  There doesn't seem to be any indication that the software was re-configured for common expressions of old English.</p><p>The study would be more plausible if works by two different authors IN ENGLAND IN THE YEAR 1600 contained 20 or so matching strings.  But since that control group is missing -- so is the validity of the conclusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a very unscientific study , with far more potentially meaningful variables than they have accounted for here.For example , these matching strings could just as well be common turns of phrase of the day .
There does n't seem to be any indication that the software was re-configured for common expressions of old English.The study would be more plausible if works by two different authors IN ENGLAND IN THE YEAR 1600 contained 20 or so matching strings .
But since that control group is missing -- so is the validity of the conclusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a very unscientific study, with far more potentially meaningful variables than they have accounted for here.For example, these matching strings could just as well be common turns of phrase of the day.
There doesn't seem to be any indication that the software was re-configured for common expressions of old English.The study would be more plausible if works by two different authors IN ENGLAND IN THE YEAR 1600 contained 20 or so matching strings.
But since that control group is missing -- so is the validity of the conclusion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820031</id>
	<title>!confirmed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256066760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The work done *suggests* that Shakespeare collaborated with Kyd on the work but it's not the slam dunk that the title would have you believe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The work done * suggests * that Shakespeare collaborated with Kyd on the work but it 's not the slam dunk that the title would have you believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The work done *suggests* that Shakespeare collaborated with Kyd on the work but it's not the slam dunk that the title would have you believe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29826203</id>
	<title>Waiting to fail...</title>
	<author>Bones3D\_mac</author>
	<datestamp>1256152080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I've always thought of these plagiarism detection systems as ticking time bombs. The more data they acquire, the less unique each individual work entered into the system becomes. Eventually, a point will come where there will be a near 100\% false-positive rate on submitted works that are original, but fail because they are worded too similarly to works already stored in the database.</p><p>For example:</p><p>"With a program called Pl@giarism, Vickers detected 200 strings of three or more words in 'Edward III' that matched phrases in Shakespeare's other works. Usually, works by two different authors will only have about 20 matching strings."</p><p>Okay... so, is the system keeping track of the time periods in which these works are written? There's a good chance that those numbers can vary greatly based on how literate a person is and their degree of formal education. A small number of matched strings between authors might be likely if they're each familiar with writing enough to utilize things like synonyms in their writing patterns.</p><p>But what about authors that aren't as educated and utilize speech and writing patterns that are more normalized among their peers? You could have significantly higher matched string counts between them.</p><p>It gets even worse when you introduce the internet savvy into the equation, where most of their contact with the outside world is specifically done through the internet. People of similar interests and trends who spend hours talking with each other in public chat channels are likely to pick up huge similarities in their writing patterns, much like how close knit communities tend to speak with similar accents and phrases over time. Our social networks directly influence how we communicate with one another.</p><p>Considering the fact that this is now a global phenomenon, it is inevitable that our individual written works will become so normalized that it will be almost impossible to distinguish who has written what with any real certainty by automated means. Especially in the generations to come!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I 've always thought of these plagiarism detection systems as ticking time bombs .
The more data they acquire , the less unique each individual work entered into the system becomes .
Eventually , a point will come where there will be a near 100 \ % false-positive rate on submitted works that are original , but fail because they are worded too similarly to works already stored in the database.For example : " With a program called Pl @ giarism , Vickers detected 200 strings of three or more words in 'Edward III ' that matched phrases in Shakespeare 's other works .
Usually , works by two different authors will only have about 20 matching strings. " Okay.. .
so , is the system keeping track of the time periods in which these works are written ?
There 's a good chance that those numbers can vary greatly based on how literate a person is and their degree of formal education .
A small number of matched strings between authors might be likely if they 're each familiar with writing enough to utilize things like synonyms in their writing patterns.But what about authors that are n't as educated and utilize speech and writing patterns that are more normalized among their peers ?
You could have significantly higher matched string counts between them.It gets even worse when you introduce the internet savvy into the equation , where most of their contact with the outside world is specifically done through the internet .
People of similar interests and trends who spend hours talking with each other in public chat channels are likely to pick up huge similarities in their writing patterns , much like how close knit communities tend to speak with similar accents and phrases over time .
Our social networks directly influence how we communicate with one another.Considering the fact that this is now a global phenomenon , it is inevitable that our individual written works will become so normalized that it will be almost impossible to distinguish who has written what with any real certainty by automated means .
Especially in the generations to come !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I've always thought of these plagiarism detection systems as ticking time bombs.
The more data they acquire, the less unique each individual work entered into the system becomes.
Eventually, a point will come where there will be a near 100\% false-positive rate on submitted works that are original, but fail because they are worded too similarly to works already stored in the database.For example:"With a program called Pl@giarism, Vickers detected 200 strings of three or more words in 'Edward III' that matched phrases in Shakespeare's other works.
Usually, works by two different authors will only have about 20 matching strings."Okay...
so, is the system keeping track of the time periods in which these works are written?
There's a good chance that those numbers can vary greatly based on how literate a person is and their degree of formal education.
A small number of matched strings between authors might be likely if they're each familiar with writing enough to utilize things like synonyms in their writing patterns.But what about authors that aren't as educated and utilize speech and writing patterns that are more normalized among their peers?
You could have significantly higher matched string counts between them.It gets even worse when you introduce the internet savvy into the equation, where most of their contact with the outside world is specifically done through the internet.
People of similar interests and trends who spend hours talking with each other in public chat channels are likely to pick up huge similarities in their writing patterns, much like how close knit communities tend to speak with similar accents and phrases over time.
Our social networks directly influence how we communicate with one another.Considering the fact that this is now a global phenomenon, it is inevitable that our individual written works will become so normalized that it will be almost impossible to distinguish who has written what with any real certainty by automated means.
Especially in the generations to come!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820347</id>
	<title>This &amp; That</title>
	<author>mindbrane</author>
	<datestamp>1256157660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>For anyone interested I'd suggest M. Wood's documentary, "In Search of Shakespeare". The four part documentary won't answer any of the more delicious and silly questions about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays but it will give as good an historical insight as is easily available. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas\_Kyd" title="wikipedia.org">Thomas Kyd</a> [wikipedia.org] is best known for his play <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Spanish\_Tragedy" title="wikipedia.org">The Spanish Tragedy</a> [wikipedia.org] worth reading for the style. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher\_Marlowe" title="wikipedia.org">Christopher Marlowe</a> [wikipedia.org] and Kyd were the new kids on the block before Shakespeare made his mark. A famous critique of Shakespeare, mentioned in Wood's documentary attacks Shakespeare as unschooled and not an equal to "university wits" like Marlowe. The problem with attribution is that, likely, all authors of that period plagiarized, (by our standards) , one another. Shakespeare started out as an actor with a traveling company IIRC, the King's Men, who were basically a troupe of government propagandists. Theatre was a relatively new  phenomenon and was used in the Elizabethan era as a propaganda tool during the conversion of England from Catholic to Protestantism. Shakespeare stole many of the best plots he studied as an actor with the King's Men. While Shakespeare was known to have co-authored plays with others, the missing play based on the first part of Cervantes <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don\_Quixote" title="wikipedia.org">Don Quxiote</a> [wikipedia.org] is the most notable example, I know of no evidence, though evidence of any kind is scant, that Shakespeare and Kyd worked together. Kyd and Marlowe were implicated as Catholic agents and Marlowe was likely murdered because he was catholic. IMHO neither Marlowe or Kyd can hold a candle to Shakespeare.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For anyone interested I 'd suggest M. Wood 's documentary , " In Search of Shakespeare " .
The four part documentary wo n't answer any of the more delicious and silly questions about the authorship of Shakespeare 's plays but it will give as good an historical insight as is easily available .
Thomas Kyd [ wikipedia.org ] is best known for his play The Spanish Tragedy [ wikipedia.org ] worth reading for the style .
Christopher Marlowe [ wikipedia.org ] and Kyd were the new kids on the block before Shakespeare made his mark .
A famous critique of Shakespeare , mentioned in Wood 's documentary attacks Shakespeare as unschooled and not an equal to " university wits " like Marlowe .
The problem with attribution is that , likely , all authors of that period plagiarized , ( by our standards ) , one another .
Shakespeare started out as an actor with a traveling company IIRC , the King 's Men , who were basically a troupe of government propagandists .
Theatre was a relatively new phenomenon and was used in the Elizabethan era as a propaganda tool during the conversion of England from Catholic to Protestantism .
Shakespeare stole many of the best plots he studied as an actor with the King 's Men .
While Shakespeare was known to have co-authored plays with others , the missing play based on the first part of Cervantes Don Quxiote [ wikipedia.org ] is the most notable example , I know of no evidence , though evidence of any kind is scant , that Shakespeare and Kyd worked together .
Kyd and Marlowe were implicated as Catholic agents and Marlowe was likely murdered because he was catholic .
IMHO neither Marlowe or Kyd can hold a candle to Shakespeare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For anyone interested I'd suggest M. Wood's documentary, "In Search of Shakespeare".
The four part documentary won't answer any of the more delicious and silly questions about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays but it will give as good an historical insight as is easily available.
Thomas Kyd [wikipedia.org] is best known for his play The Spanish Tragedy [wikipedia.org] worth reading for the style.
Christopher Marlowe [wikipedia.org] and Kyd were the new kids on the block before Shakespeare made his mark.
A famous critique of Shakespeare, mentioned in Wood's documentary attacks Shakespeare as unschooled and not an equal to "university wits" like Marlowe.
The problem with attribution is that, likely, all authors of that period plagiarized, (by our standards) , one another.
Shakespeare started out as an actor with a traveling company IIRC, the King's Men, who were basically a troupe of government propagandists.
Theatre was a relatively new  phenomenon and was used in the Elizabethan era as a propaganda tool during the conversion of England from Catholic to Protestantism.
Shakespeare stole many of the best plots he studied as an actor with the King's Men.
While Shakespeare was known to have co-authored plays with others, the missing play based on the first part of Cervantes Don Quxiote [wikipedia.org] is the most notable example, I know of no evidence, though evidence of any kind is scant, that Shakespeare and Kyd worked together.
Kyd and Marlowe were implicated as Catholic agents and Marlowe was likely murdered because he was catholic.
IMHO neither Marlowe or Kyd can hold a candle to Shakespeare.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29821339</id>
	<title>Re:This &amp; That</title>
	<author>EEPROMS</author>
	<datestamp>1256127000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are other problems with Shakespeare's life that don't gel<br> <br>
1. Shakespeare had no court experience but wrote about it as though he had (Marlow came from a higher class and was familiar with how the court worked)<br>
2. Time, Shakespeare didn't have the time to actually write the plays and do the research<br>
3. When Marlow disappeared all his writings and notes/drafts vanished.<br>
4. Shakespeare unlike every major writer and artist stopped writing (almost like he ran out of ideas) long before he died.
5. When Shakespeare died there were no books or libraries in his house. Every major historical writer has died surrounded by books but not Shakespeare.
6. Shakespeare's daughters were ignorant and could not read or write, not exactly a man of the written word.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are other problems with Shakespeare 's life that do n't gel 1 .
Shakespeare had no court experience but wrote about it as though he had ( Marlow came from a higher class and was familiar with how the court worked ) 2 .
Time , Shakespeare did n't have the time to actually write the plays and do the research 3 .
When Marlow disappeared all his writings and notes/drafts vanished .
4. Shakespeare unlike every major writer and artist stopped writing ( almost like he ran out of ideas ) long before he died .
5. When Shakespeare died there were no books or libraries in his house .
Every major historical writer has died surrounded by books but not Shakespeare .
6. Shakespeare 's daughters were ignorant and could not read or write , not exactly a man of the written word .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are other problems with Shakespeare's life that don't gel 
1.
Shakespeare had no court experience but wrote about it as though he had (Marlow came from a higher class and was familiar with how the court worked)
2.
Time, Shakespeare didn't have the time to actually write the plays and do the research
3.
When Marlow disappeared all his writings and notes/drafts vanished.
4. Shakespeare unlike every major writer and artist stopped writing (almost like he ran out of ideas) long before he died.
5. When Shakespeare died there were no books or libraries in his house.
Every major historical writer has died surrounded by books but not Shakespeare.
6. Shakespeare's daughters were ignorant and could not read or write, not exactly a man of the written word.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820383</id>
	<title>Now Try This</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256158200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get a copy of the Unabomber Manifesto<br><a href="http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt" title="eserver.org">http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt</a> [eserver.org]</p><p>Rate the entire work, and each numbered paragraph, for reading level using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability Formula<br><a href="http://www.readabilityformulas.com/flesch-grade-level-readability-formula.php" title="readabilityformulas.com">http://www.readabilityformulas.com/flesch-grade-level-readability-formula.php</a> [readabilityformulas.com]</p><p>Split the work into 2 parts, one with paragraph reading level ratings greater than the overall score, one with the scores less than overall.</p><p>Apply plagiarism testing software to compare these two halves and see whether it says they were written by the same or by different persons.</p><p>Before the creation of plagiarism testing software, we still had several different reading level testing programs available. I did this test using three different programs. They said that at least two people wrote the work. Ted Kaczynski was never considered to have Multiple Personality Disorder, so if the results (still) say two people wrote it, each with their own style, then it's highly unlikely Kaczynski wrote it by himself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get a copy of the Unabomber Manifestohttp : //cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt [ eserver.org ] Rate the entire work , and each numbered paragraph , for reading level using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability Formulahttp : //www.readabilityformulas.com/flesch-grade-level-readability-formula.php [ readabilityformulas.com ] Split the work into 2 parts , one with paragraph reading level ratings greater than the overall score , one with the scores less than overall.Apply plagiarism testing software to compare these two halves and see whether it says they were written by the same or by different persons.Before the creation of plagiarism testing software , we still had several different reading level testing programs available .
I did this test using three different programs .
They said that at least two people wrote the work .
Ted Kaczynski was never considered to have Multiple Personality Disorder , so if the results ( still ) say two people wrote it , each with their own style , then it 's highly unlikely Kaczynski wrote it by himself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get a copy of the Unabomber Manifestohttp://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt [eserver.org]Rate the entire work, and each numbered paragraph, for reading level using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability Formulahttp://www.readabilityformulas.com/flesch-grade-level-readability-formula.php [readabilityformulas.com]Split the work into 2 parts, one with paragraph reading level ratings greater than the overall score, one with the scores less than overall.Apply plagiarism testing software to compare these two halves and see whether it says they were written by the same or by different persons.Before the creation of plagiarism testing software, we still had several different reading level testing programs available.
I did this test using three different programs.
They said that at least two people wrote the work.
Ted Kaczynski was never considered to have Multiple Personality Disorder, so if the results (still) say two people wrote it, each with their own style, then it's highly unlikely Kaczynski wrote it by himself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29822397</id>
	<title>Re:Now Try This</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1256134860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I did this test using three different programs. They said that at least two people wrote the work.</i></p><p>This is interesting, but have you validated this method of analysis by applying it to works of known authorship, say on fanfic sites or alt.politics newsgroups, which would be reasonable control sources--unedited outpourings of interested amateurs?  That would tell you that works of the same author don't get flagged as different simply due to your reading-level split.</p><p>Ideally I'd like to see a p-value for your claim that "the work was written by at least two people" against the null hypothesis "only one person wrote the work".  Without a p-value you really aren't saying anything.  Presumably the plagiarism detection software produces a probability of works being by the same author.  What you need to do is apply your reading-level split to a bunch of works and generate a distribution (histogram) of the probabilities that the two parts of each work are from different authors.  Then ask the question:  what are the odds that the probability I get from applying this analysis of Kaczynski was drawn from this distribution?  That is your p-value.  If it is very small, it is implausible that Kaczynski's work was written by one author.</p><p>There are still problems with your approach, but doing this would bring you into the realm of discourse where people could argue about your method, but not dispute the objectivity of your result given your assumptions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did this test using three different programs .
They said that at least two people wrote the work.This is interesting , but have you validated this method of analysis by applying it to works of known authorship , say on fanfic sites or alt.politics newsgroups , which would be reasonable control sources--unedited outpourings of interested amateurs ?
That would tell you that works of the same author do n't get flagged as different simply due to your reading-level split.Ideally I 'd like to see a p-value for your claim that " the work was written by at least two people " against the null hypothesis " only one person wrote the work " .
Without a p-value you really are n't saying anything .
Presumably the plagiarism detection software produces a probability of works being by the same author .
What you need to do is apply your reading-level split to a bunch of works and generate a distribution ( histogram ) of the probabilities that the two parts of each work are from different authors .
Then ask the question : what are the odds that the probability I get from applying this analysis of Kaczynski was drawn from this distribution ?
That is your p-value .
If it is very small , it is implausible that Kaczynski 's work was written by one author.There are still problems with your approach , but doing this would bring you into the realm of discourse where people could argue about your method , but not dispute the objectivity of your result given your assumptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did this test using three different programs.
They said that at least two people wrote the work.This is interesting, but have you validated this method of analysis by applying it to works of known authorship, say on fanfic sites or alt.politics newsgroups, which would be reasonable control sources--unedited outpourings of interested amateurs?
That would tell you that works of the same author don't get flagged as different simply due to your reading-level split.Ideally I'd like to see a p-value for your claim that "the work was written by at least two people" against the null hypothesis "only one person wrote the work".
Without a p-value you really aren't saying anything.
Presumably the plagiarism detection software produces a probability of works being by the same author.
What you need to do is apply your reading-level split to a bunch of works and generate a distribution (histogram) of the probabilities that the two parts of each work are from different authors.
Then ask the question:  what are the odds that the probability I get from applying this analysis of Kaczynski was drawn from this distribution?
That is your p-value.
If it is very small, it is implausible that Kaczynski's work was written by one author.There are still problems with your approach, but doing this would bring you into the realm of discourse where people could argue about your method, but not dispute the objectivity of your result given your assumptions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820323</id>
	<title>Re:Divine inspiration</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256157300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, if it could be made to handle Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, it would be interesting to identify which books share authors. I'd be very curious especially about the ones who's authors are more disputed such as the book of Hebrews, the gospels, and the Tanakh/Pentateuch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , if it could be made to handle Hebrew , Aramaic , and Greek , it would be interesting to identify which books share authors .
I 'd be very curious especially about the ones who 's authors are more disputed such as the book of Hebrews , the gospels , and the Tanakh/Pentateuch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, if it could be made to handle Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, it would be interesting to identify which books share authors.
I'd be very curious especially about the ones who's authors are more disputed such as the book of Hebrews, the gospels, and the Tanakh/Pentateuch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820139</id>
	<title>LOL!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256068200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shakespeare was a faggot!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shakespeare was a faggot !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shakespeare was a faggot!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820097</id>
	<title>hmmm</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1256067420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article mentions the fact that there was very high competitive pressure on writers to compose plays very quickly so I wonder if there actually was plagiarism going on here.  How hard would it have been for one of these writers to get at least a fairly crude copy of Shakespeare's work and utilise various elements of Shakespeare's previous plays?  Can anyone enlighten us as to the probability of this being the case or for that matter how common plagiarism actually was at the time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article mentions the fact that there was very high competitive pressure on writers to compose plays very quickly so I wonder if there actually was plagiarism going on here .
How hard would it have been for one of these writers to get at least a fairly crude copy of Shakespeare 's work and utilise various elements of Shakespeare 's previous plays ?
Can anyone enlighten us as to the probability of this being the case or for that matter how common plagiarism actually was at the time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article mentions the fact that there was very high competitive pressure on writers to compose plays very quickly so I wonder if there actually was plagiarism going on here.
How hard would it have been for one of these writers to get at least a fairly crude copy of Shakespeare's work and utilise various elements of Shakespeare's previous plays?
Can anyone enlighten us as to the probability of this being the case or for that matter how common plagiarism actually was at the time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820175</id>
	<title>hackneyed phrases ...</title>
	<author>Katchu</author>
	<datestamp>1256155440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shakespeare, huh. That guys works are full of clich&#233;s.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shakespeare , huh .
That guys works are full of clich   s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shakespeare, huh.
That guys works are full of clichés.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820337</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1256157480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The article mentions the fact that there was very high competitive pressure on writers to compose plays very quickly so I wonder if there actually was plagiarism going on here.  How hard would it have been for one of these writers to get at least a fairly crude copy of Shakespeare's work and utilise various elements of Shakespeare's previous plays?  Can anyone enlighten us as to the probability of this being the case<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...?</p></div><p>Zero, unless you're suggesting he plagiarized some otherwise completely unknown work of Shakespeare that we have no other record of.  In which case, remotely possible, but pretty damn close to zero.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article mentions the fact that there was very high competitive pressure on writers to compose plays very quickly so I wonder if there actually was plagiarism going on here .
How hard would it have been for one of these writers to get at least a fairly crude copy of Shakespeare 's work and utilise various elements of Shakespeare 's previous plays ?
Can anyone enlighten us as to the probability of this being the case ... ? Zero , unless you 're suggesting he plagiarized some otherwise completely unknown work of Shakespeare that we have no other record of .
In which case , remotely possible , but pretty damn close to zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article mentions the fact that there was very high competitive pressure on writers to compose plays very quickly so I wonder if there actually was plagiarism going on here.
How hard would it have been for one of these writers to get at least a fairly crude copy of Shakespeare's work and utilise various elements of Shakespeare's previous plays?
Can anyone enlighten us as to the probability of this being the case ...?Zero, unless you're suggesting he plagiarized some otherwise completely unknown work of Shakespeare that we have no other record of.
In which case, remotely possible, but pretty damn close to zero.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29821043</id>
	<title>Re:Now Try This</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1256123520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see any validity in applying the formula to individual paragraphs.</p><p>If I were to say "The cat sat on the mat", this would score pretty low on the scale, but there is no better way to express the cat's location to you. If I were to go on to say "thus was my ailurophilia originally instantiated" this sentence would score considerably higher. However I don't see that this provides any evidence that I didn't write both sentences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see any validity in applying the formula to individual paragraphs.If I were to say " The cat sat on the mat " , this would score pretty low on the scale , but there is no better way to express the cat 's location to you .
If I were to go on to say " thus was my ailurophilia originally instantiated " this sentence would score considerably higher .
However I do n't see that this provides any evidence that I did n't write both sentences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see any validity in applying the formula to individual paragraphs.If I were to say "The cat sat on the mat", this would score pretty low on the scale, but there is no better way to express the cat's location to you.
If I were to go on to say "thus was my ailurophilia originally instantiated" this sentence would score considerably higher.
However I don't see that this provides any evidence that I didn't write both sentences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29819977</id>
	<title>Or...</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1256066160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems that the work was co-authored by Shakespeare and another playwright of the time, Thomas Kyd.</p></div><p>Or Thomas Kyd plagiarized Shakespeare's work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that the work was co-authored by Shakespeare and another playwright of the time , Thomas Kyd.Or Thomas Kyd plagiarized Shakespeare 's work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that the work was co-authored by Shakespeare and another playwright of the time, Thomas Kyd.Or Thomas Kyd plagiarized Shakespeare's work.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29822241</id>
	<title>Re:Divine inspiration</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1256133900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Would be interesting to see if a computer comes up with the same JEDP authors though.</i></p><p>The authorship question aside, it's doubtful that this kind of analysis would catch the more interesting bits of plagerism in the Bible.  The lifting of the Flood story from the Sumerian story of Utnapishtim, and the bits of Gilgamesh that are spliced into Eclesiastes, for example.</p><p>Although in the latter case Siduri's advice to Gilgamesh (go home and enjoy your life taking joy in your spouse and children, quit trying to live forever) is virtually identical to what the Teacher writes (can't recall the exact reference--somewhere in chapter 4, I think) the differences in language probably make this kind of semantics-free analysis less than useful.</p><p>And of course, most of the source material that the Bible was plagerized from is lost to us, which limits the applications of this technique to that problem as well.  This is unfortunate, as an understanding of the works that the Bible authors plagiarized would help us understand the place of the Bible in the history of literature and give more clues as to the culture that produced it.</p><p>Why, for example, was the Sumerian flood story plagiarized, and not the quest for imortality?  Why was Siduri's advice plagiarized and not Gilgamesh's lament on the death of Enkidu, or Enkidu's lament in the underworld?</p><p>This kind of analysis is extremely valuable in understanding the context in which a particular literary work was created:  we know that Shakespeare and his contemporaries borrowed plots and characters from each other all the time, repeating the same basic stories with variations, like film remakes in the modern world (Henry V is a good example of Shakespeare transforming a story that had been covered before into something new and wonderful, despite the many borrowed scenes).  What an author chose to plagiarize out of the many source works available tells us a lot about his time and place and how he saw the world.  We can't do that with the Bible, because so many of the source works it was plagiarized from have been lost to us.</p><p>The Book of Mormon, now... it would definitely be worth applying this kind of analysis to that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would be interesting to see if a computer comes up with the same JEDP authors though.The authorship question aside , it 's doubtful that this kind of analysis would catch the more interesting bits of plagerism in the Bible .
The lifting of the Flood story from the Sumerian story of Utnapishtim , and the bits of Gilgamesh that are spliced into Eclesiastes , for example.Although in the latter case Siduri 's advice to Gilgamesh ( go home and enjoy your life taking joy in your spouse and children , quit trying to live forever ) is virtually identical to what the Teacher writes ( ca n't recall the exact reference--somewhere in chapter 4 , I think ) the differences in language probably make this kind of semantics-free analysis less than useful.And of course , most of the source material that the Bible was plagerized from is lost to us , which limits the applications of this technique to that problem as well .
This is unfortunate , as an understanding of the works that the Bible authors plagiarized would help us understand the place of the Bible in the history of literature and give more clues as to the culture that produced it.Why , for example , was the Sumerian flood story plagiarized , and not the quest for imortality ?
Why was Siduri 's advice plagiarized and not Gilgamesh 's lament on the death of Enkidu , or Enkidu 's lament in the underworld ? This kind of analysis is extremely valuable in understanding the context in which a particular literary work was created : we know that Shakespeare and his contemporaries borrowed plots and characters from each other all the time , repeating the same basic stories with variations , like film remakes in the modern world ( Henry V is a good example of Shakespeare transforming a story that had been covered before into something new and wonderful , despite the many borrowed scenes ) .
What an author chose to plagiarize out of the many source works available tells us a lot about his time and place and how he saw the world .
We ca n't do that with the Bible , because so many of the source works it was plagiarized from have been lost to us.The Book of Mormon , now... it would definitely be worth applying this kind of analysis to that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would be interesting to see if a computer comes up with the same JEDP authors though.The authorship question aside, it's doubtful that this kind of analysis would catch the more interesting bits of plagerism in the Bible.
The lifting of the Flood story from the Sumerian story of Utnapishtim, and the bits of Gilgamesh that are spliced into Eclesiastes, for example.Although in the latter case Siduri's advice to Gilgamesh (go home and enjoy your life taking joy in your spouse and children, quit trying to live forever) is virtually identical to what the Teacher writes (can't recall the exact reference--somewhere in chapter 4, I think) the differences in language probably make this kind of semantics-free analysis less than useful.And of course, most of the source material that the Bible was plagerized from is lost to us, which limits the applications of this technique to that problem as well.
This is unfortunate, as an understanding of the works that the Bible authors plagiarized would help us understand the place of the Bible in the history of literature and give more clues as to the culture that produced it.Why, for example, was the Sumerian flood story plagiarized, and not the quest for imortality?
Why was Siduri's advice plagiarized and not Gilgamesh's lament on the death of Enkidu, or Enkidu's lament in the underworld?This kind of analysis is extremely valuable in understanding the context in which a particular literary work was created:  we know that Shakespeare and his contemporaries borrowed plots and characters from each other all the time, repeating the same basic stories with variations, like film remakes in the modern world (Henry V is a good example of Shakespeare transforming a story that had been covered before into something new and wonderful, despite the many borrowed scenes).
What an author chose to plagiarize out of the many source works available tells us a lot about his time and place and how he saw the world.
We can't do that with the Bible, because so many of the source works it was plagiarized from have been lost to us.The Book of Mormon, now... it would definitely be worth applying this kind of analysis to that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29821837</id>
	<title>I don't get it</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1256131080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If someone plagiarized Shakespeare, then of course it's going to contain matches because someone is copying his style and turn of phrase. Isn't that the point of this software? I don't see how finding matches allows anyone to say one way or another that the unknown work was authored by the same person. It could well be an imitator, which I'm sure Shakespeare had plenty of during his time and thereafter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone plagiarized Shakespeare , then of course it 's going to contain matches because someone is copying his style and turn of phrase .
Is n't that the point of this software ?
I do n't see how finding matches allows anyone to say one way or another that the unknown work was authored by the same person .
It could well be an imitator , which I 'm sure Shakespeare had plenty of during his time and thereafter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone plagiarized Shakespeare, then of course it's going to contain matches because someone is copying his style and turn of phrase.
Isn't that the point of this software?
I don't see how finding matches allows anyone to say one way or another that the unknown work was authored by the same person.
It could well be an imitator, which I'm sure Shakespeare had plenty of during his time and thereafter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29822559</id>
	<title>Re:I call bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256135640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>He didn't write in Old English. Old English is incomprehensible to most people today. What he wrote in was much closer to middle English.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He did n't write in Old English .
Old English is incomprehensible to most people today .
What he wrote in was much closer to middle English .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He didn't write in Old English.
Old English is incomprehensible to most people today.
What he wrote in was much closer to middle English.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820321</id>
	<title>Christopher Marlowe write it!</title>
	<author>BayaWeaver</author>
	<datestamp>1256157300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shakespeare was the conduit through which <a href="http://www.marloweshakespeare.org/index.html" title="marloweshakespeare.org" rel="nofollow">Marlowe</a> [marloweshakespeare.org] published his works after he (Marlowe) had to "disappear" through a faked death. <a href="http://www.marloweshakespeare.org/index.html" title="marloweshakespeare.org" rel="nofollow">Marlowe</a> [marloweshakespeare.org] was a wanted man because of his outspokenness and involvement in the plots and intrigues of the Elizabethan age. The facts about Shakespeare's life that can be determined with absolute certainty make it unlikely that he could be the writer of the great plays, sonnets, and poems that are ascribed to him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shakespeare was the conduit through which Marlowe [ marloweshakespeare.org ] published his works after he ( Marlowe ) had to " disappear " through a faked death .
Marlowe [ marloweshakespeare.org ] was a wanted man because of his outspokenness and involvement in the plots and intrigues of the Elizabethan age .
The facts about Shakespeare 's life that can be determined with absolute certainty make it unlikely that he could be the writer of the great plays , sonnets , and poems that are ascribed to him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shakespeare was the conduit through which Marlowe [marloweshakespeare.org] published his works after he (Marlowe) had to "disappear" through a faked death.
Marlowe [marloweshakespeare.org] was a wanted man because of his outspokenness and involvement in the plots and intrigues of the Elizabethan age.
The facts about Shakespeare's life that can be determined with absolute certainty make it unlikely that he could be the writer of the great plays, sonnets, and poems that are ascribed to him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820719</id>
	<title>Re:Not what the software was designed for</title>
	<author>Plunky</author>
	<datestamp>1256119440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anonymous Coward suggests:</p><blockquote><div><p>This software is for detecting plagiarism.</p></div></blockquote><p>But could so easily be used to identify anonymous commentary<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonymous Coward suggests : This software is for detecting plagiarism.But could so easily be used to identify anonymous commentary . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonymous Coward suggests:This software is for detecting plagiarism.But could so easily be used to identify anonymous commentary ..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820553</id>
	<title>Screen Writers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256117220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTA:<p><div class="quote"><p>"So why would the Bard, at this stage in his career - age 32 and well established by the time Edward III was published in 1596 - need to collaborate on a play? Simply because, as literature scholars have documented, <i> <b>the London theaters of the day were competing for audiences</b> </i> and had to churn out material as quickly as possible to stay ahead of one another. To do so, <i> <b>they often used groups of authors to write playbooks in a matter of weeks</b> </i>, paying each author by the scene. <i> <b>The theater companies would then often advertise themselves, rather than the authors, on the published playbooks.</b> </i>"</p></div><p>If this doesn't sound like Hollywood then I don't know what does.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : " So why would the Bard , at this stage in his career - age 32 and well established by the time Edward III was published in 1596 - need to collaborate on a play ?
Simply because , as literature scholars have documented , the London theaters of the day were competing for audiences and had to churn out material as quickly as possible to stay ahead of one another .
To do so , they often used groups of authors to write playbooks in a matter of weeks , paying each author by the scene .
The theater companies would then often advertise themselves , rather than the authors , on the published playbooks .
" If this does n't sound like Hollywood then I do n't know what does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA:"So why would the Bard, at this stage in his career - age 32 and well established by the time Edward III was published in 1596 - need to collaborate on a play?
Simply because, as literature scholars have documented,  the London theaters of the day were competing for audiences  and had to churn out material as quickly as possible to stay ahead of one another.
To do so,  they often used groups of authors to write playbooks in a matter of weeks , paying each author by the scene.
The theater companies would then often advertise themselves, rather than the authors, on the published playbooks.
"If this doesn't sound like Hollywood then I don't know what does.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29827661</id>
	<title>Shakespeare's plays vs. his other writings</title>
	<author>jolly\_rancher36</author>
	<datestamp>1256158200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's a neat experiment. Use the algorithm to compare the Works of Shakespeare to the Shakespeare of Avon's writings, such as his will, his tombstone epitaph, etc. You'll find they weren't written by the same person.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a neat experiment .
Use the algorithm to compare the Works of Shakespeare to the Shakespeare of Avon 's writings , such as his will , his tombstone epitaph , etc .
You 'll find they were n't written by the same person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a neat experiment.
Use the algorithm to compare the Works of Shakespeare to the Shakespeare of Avon's writings, such as his will, his tombstone epitaph, etc.
You'll find they weren't written by the same person.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29823487</id>
	<title>Re:Being pedantic</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1256140320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, he said "old English," not "Old English."  Shakespeare's English is from around four hundred years ago, which makes it pretty old.  "Archaic" would have been a less ambiguous word choice, and "Elizabethan" more accurate, but he wasn't necessarily confusing Shakespeare with Alfred.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , he said " old English , " not " Old English .
" Shakespeare 's English is from around four hundred years ago , which makes it pretty old .
" Archaic " would have been a less ambiguous word choice , and " Elizabethan " more accurate , but he was n't necessarily confusing Shakespeare with Alfred .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, he said "old English," not "Old English.
"  Shakespeare's English is from around four hundred years ago, which makes it pretty old.
"Archaic" would have been a less ambiguous word choice, and "Elizabethan" more accurate, but he wasn't necessarily confusing Shakespeare with Alfred.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29819975</id>
	<title>Oblig. Shakespear Quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256066160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shall I compare the to a summer day....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shall I compare the to a summer day... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shall I compare the to a summer day....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29832185</id>
	<title>Re:Divine inspiration</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256150940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uuum, that would assume that there actually are parts inspired by a "divinity".<br>Are you drunk, or already infected? ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uuum , that would assume that there actually are parts inspired by a " divinity " .Are you drunk , or already infected ?
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uuum, that would assume that there actually are parts inspired by a "divinity".Are you drunk, or already infected?
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820539</id>
	<title>One for thine homies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256117100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems that the work was co-authored by Shakespeare and another playwright of the time, Thomas Kyd.</p></div><p>When working together, they were known by the name "Kyd Shakez."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that the work was co-authored by Shakespeare and another playwright of the time , Thomas Kyd.When working together , they were known by the name " Kyd Shakez .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that the work was co-authored by Shakespeare and another playwright of the time, Thomas Kyd.When working together, they were known by the name "Kyd Shakez.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820839</id>
	<title>Any product with @ in the name...</title>
	<author>rmc</author>
	<datestamp>1256121240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, any product that has had @ in the name at any point in the last, oh, decade or so can not by any means be taken seriously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , any product that has had @ in the name at any point in the last , oh , decade or so can not by any means be taken seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, any product that has had @ in the name at any point in the last, oh, decade or so can not by any means be taken seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29824521</id>
	<title>"With a program called Pl@giarism, ..."</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1256145300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Platgiarism? That's a stupid name for a program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Platgiarism ?
That 's a stupid name for a program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Platgiarism?
That's a stupid name for a program.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820455</id>
	<title>Being pedantic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256115780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shakespeare didn't write Old English. He actually wrote modern English. Old English is Anglo-Saxon. Even Chaucer (Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote) wrote in English, though he was sometimes unsure as to how many esses to use.<p>Why the pedantry? Because, if you didn't know that, you really shouldn't be pontificating on linguistics or linguistic analysis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shakespeare did n't write Old English .
He actually wrote modern English .
Old English is Anglo-Saxon .
Even Chaucer ( Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote ) wrote in English , though he was sometimes unsure as to how many esses to use.Why the pedantry ?
Because , if you did n't know that , you really should n't be pontificating on linguistics or linguistic analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shakespeare didn't write Old English.
He actually wrote modern English.
Old English is Anglo-Saxon.
Even Chaucer (Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote) wrote in English, though he was sometimes unsure as to how many esses to use.Why the pedantry?
Because, if you didn't know that, you really shouldn't be pontificating on linguistics or linguistic analysis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820069</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29821043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29821967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29823877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29829805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29822559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29823487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29822241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29822397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29832277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29822093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29821339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29825647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29821063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29830855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29829493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29832185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_2054229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29827719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2054229.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29830855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29822241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29832185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820323
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2054229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29819945
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2054229.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29819975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2054229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2054229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2054229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29821967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820441
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2054229.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29821063
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2054229.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29823877
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2054229.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820719
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2054229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29821043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29822397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29829493
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2054229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29821931
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2054229.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820175
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2054229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29819969
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2054229.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820019
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2054229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820539
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2054229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29827719
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2054229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29822559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820455
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29832277
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29825647
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29822093
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29829805
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29823487
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2054229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2054229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29819977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2054229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29819959
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_2054229.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29820347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_2054229.29821339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
