<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_03_017259</id>
	<title>EU Wants To Redefine "Closed" As "Nearly Open"</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1257255660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Glyn Moody writes <i>"A <a href="http://www.bigwobber.nl/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/European-Interoperability-Framework-for-European-Public-Services-draft.pdf">leaked copy</a> (PDF) of Version 2 of the European Interoperability Framework replaces a requirement in Version 1 for carefully-defined open standards by one for <a href="http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2620&amp;blogid=14">a more general 'openness'</a>: 'the willingness of persons, organizations or other members of a community of interest to share knowledge and to stimulate debate within that community of interest.' It also defines an 'openness continuum' that includes 'non-documented, proprietary specifications, proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions, i.e. the "not invented here" syndrome.' Looks like 'closed' is the new 'open' in the EU."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glyn Moody writes " A leaked copy ( PDF ) of Version 2 of the European Interoperability Framework replaces a requirement in Version 1 for carefully-defined open standards by one for a more general 'openness ' : 'the willingness of persons , organizations or other members of a community of interest to share knowledge and to stimulate debate within that community of interest .
' It also defines an 'openness continuum ' that includes 'non-documented , proprietary specifications , proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions , i.e .
the " not invented here " syndrome .
' Looks like 'closed ' is the new 'open ' in the EU .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glyn Moody writes "A leaked copy (PDF) of Version 2 of the European Interoperability Framework replaces a requirement in Version 1 for carefully-defined open standards by one for a more general 'openness': 'the willingness of persons, organizations or other members of a community of interest to share knowledge and to stimulate debate within that community of interest.
' It also defines an 'openness continuum' that includes 'non-documented, proprietary specifications, proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions, i.e.
the "not invented here" syndrome.
' Looks like 'closed' is the new 'open' in the EU.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961660</id>
	<title>open standards and closed source</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1257248760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The document defines openness as companies/organizations collaborating, sharing and debating. No mention of who owns the knowledge. The simple fact is - that if the source ain't open then the 'standards' can't be open.<br> <br>

'<i>Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the <a href="http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php" title="opensource.org">following criteria</a> [opensource.org]: Free Redistribution, Source Code, Derived Works, Integrity of The Author's Source Code, No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups, No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor, Distribution of License, License Must Not Be Specific to a Product, License Must Not Restrict Other Software, License Must Be Technology-Neutral<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..<i>'<br> <br>
--<br> <br>

<i>Minion: We can't compete against open source<br>
Boss: lets promote a paradigm shift and say it's not about 'open source' but about 'open standards' and then get 'open standards' to mean using our software.<br>
Minion: That's so evil boss !<br>
Boss: I know<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/characters/-boss" title="ubersoft.net">Ubersoft</a> [ubersoft.net] </i></i></i></htmltext>
<tokenext>The document defines openness as companies/organizations collaborating , sharing and debating .
No mention of who owns the knowledge .
The simple fact is - that if the source ai n't open then the 'standards ' ca n't be open .
'Open source does n't just mean access to the source code .
The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria [ opensource.org ] : Free Redistribution , Source Code , Derived Works , Integrity of The Author 's Source Code , No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups , No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor , Distribution of License , License Must Not Be Specific to a Product , License Must Not Restrict Other Software , License Must Be Technology-Neutral .. ' -- Minion : We ca n't compete against open source Boss : lets promote a paradigm shift and say it 's not about 'open source ' but about 'open standards ' and then get 'open standards ' to mean using our software .
Minion : That 's so evil boss !
Boss : I know . . Ubersoft [ ubersoft.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The document defines openness as companies/organizations collaborating, sharing and debating.
No mention of who owns the knowledge.
The simple fact is - that if the source ain't open then the 'standards' can't be open.
'Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.
The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria [opensource.org]: Free Redistribution, Source Code, Derived Works, Integrity of The Author's Source Code, No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups, No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor, Distribution of License, License Must Not Be Specific to a Product, License Must Not Restrict Other Software, License Must Be Technology-Neutral ..' 
-- 

Minion: We can't compete against open source
Boss: lets promote a paradigm shift and say it's not about 'open source' but about 'open standards' and then get 'open standards' to mean using our software.
Minion: That's so evil boss !
Boss: I know .. 

Ubersoft [ubersoft.net] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961374</id>
	<title>Re:Well, actually ...</title>
	<author>Carewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257244440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the article looks like a troll.</p><p>An openness scala needs to have two extremes to be useful, which is why it also needs to included the worst of the worst in closedness, which reflects the minimum of openness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the article looks like a troll.An openness scala needs to have two extremes to be useful , which is why it also needs to included the worst of the worst in closedness , which reflects the minimum of openness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the article looks like a troll.An openness scala needs to have two extremes to be useful, which is why it also needs to included the worst of the worst in closedness, which reflects the minimum of openness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958664</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>C) Not patent encumbered</i>

Proving this is often extremely difficult and costs millions of dollars in IP research.  For example, one should note that such research has never been done for Ogg Vorbis or Theora, which is why some paranoid companies are still unwilling to adopt them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>C ) Not patent encumbered Proving this is often extremely difficult and costs millions of dollars in IP research .
For example , one should note that such research has never been done for Ogg Vorbis or Theora , which is why some paranoid companies are still unwilling to adopt them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C) Not patent encumbered

Proving this is often extremely difficult and costs millions of dollars in IP research.
For example, one should note that such research has never been done for Ogg Vorbis or Theora, which is why some paranoid companies are still unwilling to adopt them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960928</id>
	<title>Twisting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257280920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is disingenious. The document actually says the OPPOSITE of what one might think if reading only the slashdot-introduction. It says that open-ness is not a binary proposition, but a continuum where (and I quote)</p><p>Specifications, software and software development methods that promote collaboration and the results of which can freely be accessed, resused and shared are considered open and lie at one end of the spectrum while non-documented, proprietary specifications, proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions, i.e. the "not invented here" syndrome, lie at the other end.</p><p>This very clearly doesn't claim that proprietary software is open. Infact it does the oposite, it says directly that it lies on a spectrum, where ONE end can be called "open", and this lies at the *other* end. It doesn't directly say what that other end is called, but a reasonable guess would be "closed".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is disingenious .
The document actually says the OPPOSITE of what one might think if reading only the slashdot-introduction .
It says that open-ness is not a binary proposition , but a continuum where ( and I quote ) Specifications , software and software development methods that promote collaboration and the results of which can freely be accessed , resused and shared are considered open and lie at one end of the spectrum while non-documented , proprietary specifications , proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions , i.e .
the " not invented here " syndrome , lie at the other end.This very clearly does n't claim that proprietary software is open .
Infact it does the oposite , it says directly that it lies on a spectrum , where ONE end can be called " open " , and this lies at the * other * end .
It does n't directly say what that other end is called , but a reasonable guess would be " closed " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is disingenious.
The document actually says the OPPOSITE of what one might think if reading only the slashdot-introduction.
It says that open-ness is not a binary proposition, but a continuum where (and I quote)Specifications, software and software development methods that promote collaboration and the results of which can freely be accessed, resused and shared are considered open and lie at one end of the spectrum while non-documented, proprietary specifications, proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions, i.e.
the "not invented here" syndrome, lie at the other end.This very clearly doesn't claim that proprietary software is open.
Infact it does the oposite, it says directly that it lies on a spectrum, where ONE end can be called "open", and this lies at the *other* end.
It doesn't directly say what that other end is called, but a reasonable guess would be "closed".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960904</id>
	<title>FAILZORS.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257280620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Host what the hoIuse To it5 laid-back</htmltext>
<tokenext>Host what the hoIuse To it5 laid-back</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Host what the hoIuse To it5 laid-back</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29972616</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it?</title>
	<author>Jeremy Visser</author>
	<datestamp>1257261960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For example, one should note that [patent] research has never been done for Ogg Vorbis or Theora, which is why some paranoid companies are still unwilling to adopt them.</p></div><p>Use <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac\_(codec)" title="wikipedia.org">Dirac</a> [wikipedia.org] then. The BBC have specifically engineered it to not violate patents that they have researched.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , one should note that [ patent ] research has never been done for Ogg Vorbis or Theora , which is why some paranoid companies are still unwilling to adopt them.Use Dirac [ wikipedia.org ] then .
The BBC have specifically engineered it to not violate patents that they have researched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, one should note that [patent] research has never been done for Ogg Vorbis or Theora, which is why some paranoid companies are still unwilling to adopt them.Use Dirac [wikipedia.org] then.
The BBC have specifically engineered it to not violate patents that they have researched.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958884</id>
	<title>Re:Well, actually ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257175620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Looks like 'closed' is the new 'open' in the EU.</p></div><p>Actually, it looks like "corrupt" is the same old corrupt that it's always been. Gotta wonder just what changed hands to make that happen.</p></div><p>Up is down, slavery is freedom, and wrong is right.  Typical shit that can be expected from corrupt governments and the corrupt people who put up with them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like 'closed ' is the new 'open ' in the EU.Actually , it looks like " corrupt " is the same old corrupt that it 's always been .
Got ta wonder just what changed hands to make that happen.Up is down , slavery is freedom , and wrong is right .
Typical shit that can be expected from corrupt governments and the corrupt people who put up with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like 'closed' is the new 'open' in the EU.Actually, it looks like "corrupt" is the same old corrupt that it's always been.
Gotta wonder just what changed hands to make that happen.Up is down, slavery is freedom, and wrong is right.
Typical shit that can be expected from corrupt governments and the corrupt people who put up with them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958744</id>
	<title>News at 11</title>
	<author>markdavis</author>
	<datestamp>1257174960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>News at 11- it is a huge surprise when it was found that money from commercial software giant lobbyists and special interest groups influenced the assumed impartial decision-making process of the EU.  How could this happen????

If you can beat 'em, just redefine the playing field.</htmltext>
<tokenext>News at 11- it is a huge surprise when it was found that money from commercial software giant lobbyists and special interest groups influenced the assumed impartial decision-making process of the EU .
How could this happen ? ? ? ?
If you can beat 'em , just redefine the playing field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News at 11- it is a huge surprise when it was found that money from commercial software giant lobbyists and special interest groups influenced the assumed impartial decision-making process of the EU.
How could this happen????
If you can beat 'em, just redefine the playing field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29966260</id>
	<title>Re:Well, actually ...</title>
	<author>he-sk</author>
	<datestamp>1257276360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you trying to argue with me?  I can't really tell, because I explicitly said that it's not about making everything equal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you trying to argue with me ?
I ca n't really tell , because I explicitly said that it 's not about making everything equal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you trying to argue with me?
I can't really tell, because I explicitly said that it's not about making everything equal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29962882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960436</id>
	<title>Re:To quote Beavis and Butt-head</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257188880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Just because something's cool, doesn't mean it doesn't suck!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Just because something 's cool , does n't mean it does n't suck !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Just because something's cool, doesn't mean it doesn't suck!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29969352</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257247080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Document? ODF or PDF (not sure how "open" PDF really is but its pretty universal)</p></div><p>Universal does not mean open. Look at the GIF debacle.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How hard is it to define open as<br>A) Open specs<br>B) An open implementation of those specs both on<br>C) Not patent encumbered</p> </div><p>I can see two problems. The first is that what is valid as a patent may not be valid somewhere else. There is also the grey area of apparently who-patents-first-gets, which means a format initially designed as open could end up infringing by manipulation of how the patent process works.<br>The second, and more important, problem is that it is likely that there is a loooong heritage of files for legacy systems from, shall we say, less enlightened times.<br>Now along comes Bleaty the sheep-like dealer. He is a fan of Microsoft because it is what he knows, grew up with, etc. He will recommend Word/Office/whatever in preference to stuff like AbiWord or StarOffice because it is something completely different. That it looks and feels like much the same thing is only apparent once you've overcome enough mental hurdles to actually install it.<br>Then there's the kicker. It is mostly file compatible, but not completely. I tried this on some of the girls at work. They didn't know what it meant, and seemed quite surprised that somebody was "giving away" something akin to Office. But not surprised enough to change.<br>Because, well... better the devil you know.</p><p>And I think *that* is one of the main obstacles the open source movement is facing. An army of the clueless who are "comfortable" with the crap they're using and don't want to venture out of that comfort zone...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Audio? Ogg Vorbis<br>Video? Ogg Theora</p> </div><p>I have an Ogg-free system. There might be a codec around somewhere, but the DVD player can't do it. Neither can the other one. Nor the Zen. In the end, a format is only as good as the hardware that supports it. Some can Ogg. Many can't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Document ?
ODF or PDF ( not sure how " open " PDF really is but its pretty universal ) Universal does not mean open .
Look at the GIF debacle.How hard is it to define open asA ) Open specsB ) An open implementation of those specs both onC ) Not patent encumbered I can see two problems .
The first is that what is valid as a patent may not be valid somewhere else .
There is also the grey area of apparently who-patents-first-gets , which means a format initially designed as open could end up infringing by manipulation of how the patent process works.The second , and more important , problem is that it is likely that there is a loooong heritage of files for legacy systems from , shall we say , less enlightened times.Now along comes Bleaty the sheep-like dealer .
He is a fan of Microsoft because it is what he knows , grew up with , etc .
He will recommend Word/Office/whatever in preference to stuff like AbiWord or StarOffice because it is something completely different .
That it looks and feels like much the same thing is only apparent once you 've overcome enough mental hurdles to actually install it.Then there 's the kicker .
It is mostly file compatible , but not completely .
I tried this on some of the girls at work .
They did n't know what it meant , and seemed quite surprised that somebody was " giving away " something akin to Office .
But not surprised enough to change.Because , well... better the devil you know.And I think * that * is one of the main obstacles the open source movement is facing .
An army of the clueless who are " comfortable " with the crap they 're using and do n't want to venture out of that comfort zone...Audio ?
Ogg VorbisVideo ?
Ogg Theora I have an Ogg-free system .
There might be a codec around somewhere , but the DVD player ca n't do it .
Neither can the other one .
Nor the Zen .
In the end , a format is only as good as the hardware that supports it .
Some can Ogg .
Many ca n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Document?
ODF or PDF (not sure how "open" PDF really is but its pretty universal)Universal does not mean open.
Look at the GIF debacle.How hard is it to define open asA) Open specsB) An open implementation of those specs both onC) Not patent encumbered I can see two problems.
The first is that what is valid as a patent may not be valid somewhere else.
There is also the grey area of apparently who-patents-first-gets, which means a format initially designed as open could end up infringing by manipulation of how the patent process works.The second, and more important, problem is that it is likely that there is a loooong heritage of files for legacy systems from, shall we say, less enlightened times.Now along comes Bleaty the sheep-like dealer.
He is a fan of Microsoft because it is what he knows, grew up with, etc.
He will recommend Word/Office/whatever in preference to stuff like AbiWord or StarOffice because it is something completely different.
That it looks and feels like much the same thing is only apparent once you've overcome enough mental hurdles to actually install it.Then there's the kicker.
It is mostly file compatible, but not completely.
I tried this on some of the girls at work.
They didn't know what it meant, and seemed quite surprised that somebody was "giving away" something akin to Office.
But not surprised enough to change.Because, well... better the devil you know.And I think *that* is one of the main obstacles the open source movement is facing.
An army of the clueless who are "comfortable" with the crap they're using and don't want to venture out of that comfort zone...Audio?
Ogg VorbisVideo?
Ogg Theora I have an Ogg-free system.
There might be a codec around somewhere, but the DVD player can't do it.
Neither can the other one.
Nor the Zen.
In the end, a format is only as good as the hardware that supports it.
Some can Ogg.
Many can't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960694</id>
	<title>Re:Well, actually ...</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1257191460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, it looks like "corrupt" is the same old corrupt that it's always been.</p></div><p>Which brings up a good point about the socialist policies and larger centralized governments typically favored in European Democracies. The more that power and national wealth are centralized in the hands of the national government the greater the incentive and opportunity for corruption, patronage, and undue insider influence to occur. In fact, many of the wealthy families of Europe have maintained their fortunes, at least in part by, successfully manipulating these national governments through patronage and corrupt bargains with government officials and elected representatives. This is one of the reasons why the Libertarians amongst us oppose the massive expansion of the Federal Government here in the United States and increased government spending; we do not believe that the corruption which exists in Europe is a desirable import for the United States. Those who believe that they will "punish the wealthy" need only look to Europe to see that the wealthy will largely keep their wealth while the middle class chafes under high unemployment, high prices for consumer goods and high taxes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it looks like " corrupt " is the same old corrupt that it 's always been.Which brings up a good point about the socialist policies and larger centralized governments typically favored in European Democracies .
The more that power and national wealth are centralized in the hands of the national government the greater the incentive and opportunity for corruption , patronage , and undue insider influence to occur .
In fact , many of the wealthy families of Europe have maintained their fortunes , at least in part by , successfully manipulating these national governments through patronage and corrupt bargains with government officials and elected representatives .
This is one of the reasons why the Libertarians amongst us oppose the massive expansion of the Federal Government here in the United States and increased government spending ; we do not believe that the corruption which exists in Europe is a desirable import for the United States .
Those who believe that they will " punish the wealthy " need only look to Europe to see that the wealthy will largely keep their wealth while the middle class chafes under high unemployment , high prices for consumer goods and high taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it looks like "corrupt" is the same old corrupt that it's always been.Which brings up a good point about the socialist policies and larger centralized governments typically favored in European Democracies.
The more that power and national wealth are centralized in the hands of the national government the greater the incentive and opportunity for corruption, patronage, and undue insider influence to occur.
In fact, many of the wealthy families of Europe have maintained their fortunes, at least in part by, successfully manipulating these national governments through patronage and corrupt bargains with government officials and elected representatives.
This is one of the reasons why the Libertarians amongst us oppose the massive expansion of the Federal Government here in the United States and increased government spending; we do not believe that the corruption which exists in Europe is a desirable import for the United States.
Those who believe that they will "punish the wealthy" need only look to Europe to see that the wealthy will largely keep their wealth while the middle class chafes under high unemployment, high prices for consumer goods and high taxes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959146</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it?</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1257177300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"PDF (not sure how "open" PDF really is but its pretty universal)"<br> <br>

PDF is very open -- although there are still extensions that are difficult to work with without proprietary software.  As an electronic document medium, PDF is pretty much what I demand from people who send me formatted documents; it is, in my opinion, something of a lingua franca for formatted documents.  There is also DVI, though it is not as popular, and if all else fails, Postscript (which can, in the worst case, simple be sent to a printer).<br> <br>

"There isn't a single thing that governments really need that isn't open or can be created for less cost than contracting it to proprietary vendors."<br> <br>

True, but sadly, it is not something we will see here in America.  Proprietary software is so deeply ingrained in our government, and corporate interests are so powerful, that I would be very impressed if it could all be shaken off within my lifetime.  Further compounding the problem is the level of understanding of technology that key decision makers seem to have, which is a level that can only be described as "complete ineptitude."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" PDF ( not sure how " open " PDF really is but its pretty universal ) " PDF is very open -- although there are still extensions that are difficult to work with without proprietary software .
As an electronic document medium , PDF is pretty much what I demand from people who send me formatted documents ; it is , in my opinion , something of a lingua franca for formatted documents .
There is also DVI , though it is not as popular , and if all else fails , Postscript ( which can , in the worst case , simple be sent to a printer ) .
" There is n't a single thing that governments really need that is n't open or can be created for less cost than contracting it to proprietary vendors .
" True , but sadly , it is not something we will see here in America .
Proprietary software is so deeply ingrained in our government , and corporate interests are so powerful , that I would be very impressed if it could all be shaken off within my lifetime .
Further compounding the problem is the level of understanding of technology that key decision makers seem to have , which is a level that can only be described as " complete ineptitude .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"PDF (not sure how "open" PDF really is but its pretty universal)" 

PDF is very open -- although there are still extensions that are difficult to work with without proprietary software.
As an electronic document medium, PDF is pretty much what I demand from people who send me formatted documents; it is, in my opinion, something of a lingua franca for formatted documents.
There is also DVI, though it is not as popular, and if all else fails, Postscript (which can, in the worst case, simple be sent to a printer).
"There isn't a single thing that governments really need that isn't open or can be created for less cost than contracting it to proprietary vendors.
" 

True, but sadly, it is not something we will see here in America.
Proprietary software is so deeply ingrained in our government, and corporate interests are so powerful, that I would be very impressed if it could all be shaken off within my lifetime.
Further compounding the problem is the level of understanding of technology that key decision makers seem to have, which is a level that can only be described as "complete ineptitude.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958392</id>
	<title>first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257173100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959296</id>
	<title>Re:Well, actually ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257178500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nothing has to change hands... this is how the lobbyist sycophants work.  "Open Sources" was the new buzzword the pleb bureaucrats want.... so lobbyists continually re-spin words until something sticks... like little kids begging daddy for candy it goes from "no candy" to "how many pieces to get you to shut up so I can work".   Unfortunately lobbyists aren't treated like begging children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nothing has to change hands... this is how the lobbyist sycophants work .
" Open Sources " was the new buzzword the pleb bureaucrats want.... so lobbyists continually re-spin words until something sticks... like little kids begging daddy for candy it goes from " no candy " to " how many pieces to get you to shut up so I can work " .
Unfortunately lobbyists are n't treated like begging children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nothing has to change hands... this is how the lobbyist sycophants work.
"Open Sources" was the new buzzword the pleb bureaucrats want.... so lobbyists continually re-spin words until something sticks... like little kids begging daddy for candy it goes from "no candy" to "how many pieces to get you to shut up so I can work".
Unfortunately lobbyists aren't treated like begging children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958470</id>
	<title>Read the line about community of interest 5 times</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1257173520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What exactly does it mean? Does it mean that anything with an active helpful community is open? That makes practically anything that's distributed to the public "open".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly does it mean ?
Does it mean that anything with an active helpful community is open ?
That makes practically anything that 's distributed to the public " open " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly does it mean?
Does it mean that anything with an active helpful community is open?
That makes practically anything that's distributed to the public "open".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959544</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it?</title>
	<author>Tacvek</author>
	<datestamp>1257180840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that many companies see no problem with paying RAND patent fees, and fail to see why that would make it not open. The is especially true in areas where patents are pooled, so if you have even one patent that might apply you add that to the pool, and either get a partial refund on the fees by being part of the pool, or having the fees waived entirely. (Depends on the specific patent pool).</p><p>Also what is an Open Specification? Is it one that is publicly available without fee? In that case the C programing language would not be an open standard, nor would many other ISO or IEEE standards that we all take for granted. (Admittedly some of those standards also have freely available standards that are effectively equivalent or even superior, like PDF, where the ISO standard is a subset of full PDF, or PNG where the ISO standard should be equivalent to the PNG specification).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that many companies see no problem with paying RAND patent fees , and fail to see why that would make it not open .
The is especially true in areas where patents are pooled , so if you have even one patent that might apply you add that to the pool , and either get a partial refund on the fees by being part of the pool , or having the fees waived entirely .
( Depends on the specific patent pool ) .Also what is an Open Specification ?
Is it one that is publicly available without fee ?
In that case the C programing language would not be an open standard , nor would many other ISO or IEEE standards that we all take for granted .
( Admittedly some of those standards also have freely available standards that are effectively equivalent or even superior , like PDF , where the ISO standard is a subset of full PDF , or PNG where the ISO standard should be equivalent to the PNG specification ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that many companies see no problem with paying RAND patent fees, and fail to see why that would make it not open.
The is especially true in areas where patents are pooled, so if you have even one patent that might apply you add that to the pool, and either get a partial refund on the fees by being part of the pool, or having the fees waived entirely.
(Depends on the specific patent pool).Also what is an Open Specification?
Is it one that is publicly available without fee?
In that case the C programing language would not be an open standard, nor would many other ISO or IEEE standards that we all take for granted.
(Admittedly some of those standards also have freely available standards that are effectively equivalent or even superior, like PDF, where the ISO standard is a subset of full PDF, or PNG where the ISO standard should be equivalent to the PNG specification).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29973008</id>
	<title>Re:Well, actually ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257265380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More likely the bureaucrats have simply heard more information from lobbyists for the software industry (EU and foreign), and have been convinced to update their opinions.</p><p>The EU is not like the USA, where political bribes (so-called 'campaign contributions') are essential if politicians are to stay in office. No, EU Commissioners are appointed by elected national governments, and are free to act in the best interests of the EU.</p><p>There has been a great deal of lobbying for so-called 'open standards', often by firms that wish to replace proprietary software at one level with bespoke software and services at another. Instead of buying proprietary software for which skilled staff are easy to find, for example, this might entail using open source software and bespoke solutions that require extensive vendor services to maintain (and which staff from rival vendors would have difficulty supporting). The so-called 'lock in' effect thus moves from the software layer to the services layer.</p><p>Supporters of open standards were very vocal and often quite persuasive, putting only one side of the argument of course. The use of open standards can provide benefits, but the reality is that most systems used in the EU are proprietary, and interoperate very well with other proprietary systems, in general including systems from a range of vendors. The claimed interoperability benefits of standardisation can thus often easily be achieved with proprietary systems, which may be more cost effective and more technologically advanced. Standards, after all, take time to develop, often merely codifying what has already been implemented, whereas market competition in innovation can drive rapid improvement.</p><p>From my reading of this revised draft of the EIF, all that has really happened is that both sides of the argument have now been taken into account. Organisations can still opt for open standards, but are less likely to be pushed to accept inferior open solutions when proprietary solutions offer better collaboration and interoperability possibilities. The ideology of open standards that briefly held sway over pragmatism has given way to an approach that aims first to achieve interoperability between public services organisations, rather than to promote a hidden ideological agenda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More likely the bureaucrats have simply heard more information from lobbyists for the software industry ( EU and foreign ) , and have been convinced to update their opinions.The EU is not like the USA , where political bribes ( so-called 'campaign contributions ' ) are essential if politicians are to stay in office .
No , EU Commissioners are appointed by elected national governments , and are free to act in the best interests of the EU.There has been a great deal of lobbying for so-called 'open standards ' , often by firms that wish to replace proprietary software at one level with bespoke software and services at another .
Instead of buying proprietary software for which skilled staff are easy to find , for example , this might entail using open source software and bespoke solutions that require extensive vendor services to maintain ( and which staff from rival vendors would have difficulty supporting ) .
The so-called 'lock in ' effect thus moves from the software layer to the services layer.Supporters of open standards were very vocal and often quite persuasive , putting only one side of the argument of course .
The use of open standards can provide benefits , but the reality is that most systems used in the EU are proprietary , and interoperate very well with other proprietary systems , in general including systems from a range of vendors .
The claimed interoperability benefits of standardisation can thus often easily be achieved with proprietary systems , which may be more cost effective and more technologically advanced .
Standards , after all , take time to develop , often merely codifying what has already been implemented , whereas market competition in innovation can drive rapid improvement.From my reading of this revised draft of the EIF , all that has really happened is that both sides of the argument have now been taken into account .
Organisations can still opt for open standards , but are less likely to be pushed to accept inferior open solutions when proprietary solutions offer better collaboration and interoperability possibilities .
The ideology of open standards that briefly held sway over pragmatism has given way to an approach that aims first to achieve interoperability between public services organisations , rather than to promote a hidden ideological agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More likely the bureaucrats have simply heard more information from lobbyists for the software industry (EU and foreign), and have been convinced to update their opinions.The EU is not like the USA, where political bribes (so-called 'campaign contributions') are essential if politicians are to stay in office.
No, EU Commissioners are appointed by elected national governments, and are free to act in the best interests of the EU.There has been a great deal of lobbying for so-called 'open standards', often by firms that wish to replace proprietary software at one level with bespoke software and services at another.
Instead of buying proprietary software for which skilled staff are easy to find, for example, this might entail using open source software and bespoke solutions that require extensive vendor services to maintain (and which staff from rival vendors would have difficulty supporting).
The so-called 'lock in' effect thus moves from the software layer to the services layer.Supporters of open standards were very vocal and often quite persuasive, putting only one side of the argument of course.
The use of open standards can provide benefits, but the reality is that most systems used in the EU are proprietary, and interoperate very well with other proprietary systems, in general including systems from a range of vendors.
The claimed interoperability benefits of standardisation can thus often easily be achieved with proprietary systems, which may be more cost effective and more technologically advanced.
Standards, after all, take time to develop, often merely codifying what has already been implemented, whereas market competition in innovation can drive rapid improvement.From my reading of this revised draft of the EIF, all that has really happened is that both sides of the argument have now been taken into account.
Organisations can still opt for open standards, but are less likely to be pushed to accept inferior open solutions when proprietary solutions offer better collaboration and interoperability possibilities.
The ideology of open standards that briefly held sway over pragmatism has given way to an approach that aims first to achieve interoperability between public services organisations, rather than to promote a hidden ideological agenda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958654</id>
	<title>Doublespeak and Redefining</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The older I get the more I realize how powerful those in power are.  Not a conspiracy, just a bunch of greedy SOBs who will do whatever they can get away with to control and own more.  From marketing being used to dilute meanings to out and out bribery of committee members to swing votes or bypass procedures.  The worst part is that they get their power readily from another group, far more numerous than they, of individuals too lazy or too overwhelmed to pay attention to what is being done to them.</p><p>Our history is full of cycles.  Are we approaching another age of the Robber Baron in another form?  Did the age ever truly leave?  Nah.  The rich and powerful and greedy have always been and always will be the rich and powerful and greedy.  Only now, they are immortal corporations.  They can die, but not in ways we can, nor are they truly limited in years.  The funny part, like a good tragic comedy, is that the greed that makes them so powerful and dangerous is often the very thing that kills them in the end.</p><p>But the carnage they leave behind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The older I get the more I realize how powerful those in power are .
Not a conspiracy , just a bunch of greedy SOBs who will do whatever they can get away with to control and own more .
From marketing being used to dilute meanings to out and out bribery of committee members to swing votes or bypass procedures .
The worst part is that they get their power readily from another group , far more numerous than they , of individuals too lazy or too overwhelmed to pay attention to what is being done to them.Our history is full of cycles .
Are we approaching another age of the Robber Baron in another form ?
Did the age ever truly leave ?
Nah. The rich and powerful and greedy have always been and always will be the rich and powerful and greedy .
Only now , they are immortal corporations .
They can die , but not in ways we can , nor are they truly limited in years .
The funny part , like a good tragic comedy , is that the greed that makes them so powerful and dangerous is often the very thing that kills them in the end.But the carnage they leave behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The older I get the more I realize how powerful those in power are.
Not a conspiracy, just a bunch of greedy SOBs who will do whatever they can get away with to control and own more.
From marketing being used to dilute meanings to out and out bribery of committee members to swing votes or bypass procedures.
The worst part is that they get their power readily from another group, far more numerous than they, of individuals too lazy or too overwhelmed to pay attention to what is being done to them.Our history is full of cycles.
Are we approaching another age of the Robber Baron in another form?
Did the age ever truly leave?
Nah.  The rich and powerful and greedy have always been and always will be the rich and powerful and greedy.
Only now, they are immortal corporations.
They can die, but not in ways we can, nor are they truly limited in years.
The funny part, like a good tragic comedy, is that the greed that makes them so powerful and dangerous is often the very thing that kills them in the end.But the carnage they leave behind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29965478</id>
	<title>Ministry of Sharing</title>
	<author>darkvizier</author>
	<datestamp>1257272700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Welcome, welcome sir to the Ministry of Sharing!  Here you can see our top programmers at work on the next version of Digital Rights Management.  We're giving people an amazing amount of freedom with this.  And over here... this is brilliant.  One of our most cunning works to date if I may say so myself.  It's a server, but wait... with no open ports!<br> <br>
Well, I hope you've enjoyed your visit.  Please come back and see our open facility again!  Oh no, carry on, nothing more to see here.  We really must be going.  No, put that down... You can't... SECURITY!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome , welcome sir to the Ministry of Sharing !
Here you can see our top programmers at work on the next version of Digital Rights Management .
We 're giving people an amazing amount of freedom with this .
And over here... this is brilliant .
One of our most cunning works to date if I may say so myself .
It 's a server , but wait... with no open ports !
Well , I hope you 've enjoyed your visit .
Please come back and see our open facility again !
Oh no , carry on , nothing more to see here .
We really must be going .
No , put that down... You ca n't... SECURITY !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome, welcome sir to the Ministry of Sharing!
Here you can see our top programmers at work on the next version of Digital Rights Management.
We're giving people an amazing amount of freedom with this.
And over here... this is brilliant.
One of our most cunning works to date if I may say so myself.
It's a server, but wait... with no open ports!
Well, I hope you've enjoyed your visit.
Please come back and see our open facility again!
Oh no, carry on, nothing more to see here.
We really must be going.
No, put that down... You can't... SECURITY!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958798</id>
	<title>Europhilia</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1257175260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What?  No Orwell, 1984, or doublethink tags?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
No Orwell , 1984 , or doublethink tags ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
No Orwell, 1984, or doublethink tags?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959614</id>
	<title>They don't say what you accuse them of saying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257181620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>With your selective quoting, and careful omissions, you have distorted and misrepresented what they have actually said. They never defined, nor attempted to redefine closed as open. In fact, they fully recognize and accurately define what constitutes "Open" and carefully noted that closed, propietary software and standards lie on the opposite end of the spectrum, or continuum. Here is the full, fair, non-distorted quote:<blockquote><div><p>Specifications, software and software development methods that promote collaboration and the results
of  which  can  freely  be  accessed,  reused  and  shared  are  considered  open  and  lie  at  one  end  of  the spectrum while non-documented, proprietary specifications, proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions, i.e. the "not invented here" syndrome, lie at the other end.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

By placing open on one and of the spectrum, and closed on the other, they very clearly are stating that the two are <strong>opposites</strong>. And to me, that seems like a perfectly fair and accurate description of the range of openness that exists in information systems and standards.

Moreover, they conclude the section on openness with this recommendation:</p><blockquote><div><p>Recommendation 5.  Public  administrations  should  favour  openness  when  working  together  to
establish European Public Service while taking into account their priorities and constraints.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Do you not see that by distorting their words to advance your own agenda, and attributing to them malicious intent without any basis in fact, you undermine the very cause which you pretend to champion? Is that what you want to do? Do you really want to undermine the credibility of those who advocate for free and open standards, especially in the public sector?<br> <br>

Here is the full text of the section on oppenness, so that everyone can see it in its entirety, and draw their own conclusions.</p><blockquote><div><p>2.10  Underlying Principle 9: Openness <br> <br>

Within the context of the EIF, openness is the willingness of persons, organisations or other members
of  a  community  of  interest  to  share  knowledge  and  to  stimulate  debate  within  that  community  of interest, having as ultimate goal  the advancement of knowledge and  the use  thereof  to solve relevant problems. In that sense, openness leads to considerable gains in efficiency.<br> <br>

Interoperability  involves  the  sharing  of  information  and  knowledge  between  organisations,  hence implies a certain degree of openness. There are varying degrees of openness.  <br> <br>

The  spectrum  of  approaches  that  lies  between  these  two  extremes  can  be  called  the  openness
continuum. <br> <br>

European  public  administrations  need  to  decide  where  they  wish  to  position  themselves  on  this continuum with respect to the issues discussed in the EIF. The exact position may vary, on a case-by-case basis, depending on their needs, priorities, legacy, budget, market situation and a number of other factors.  While  there  is  a  correlation  between  openness  and  interoperability,  it  is  also  true  that interoperability can be obtained without openness,  for example via homogeneity of  the  ICT systems, which implies that all partners use, or agree to use, the same solution to implement a European Public Service. <br> <br>

Recommendation 5.  Public  administrations  should  favour  openness  when  working  together  to
establish European Public Service while taking into account their priorities and constraints.</p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With your selective quoting , and careful omissions , you have distorted and misrepresented what they have actually said .
They never defined , nor attempted to redefine closed as open .
In fact , they fully recognize and accurately define what constitutes " Open " and carefully noted that closed , propietary software and standards lie on the opposite end of the spectrum , or continuum .
Here is the full , fair , non-distorted quote : Specifications , software and software development methods that promote collaboration and the results of which can freely be accessed , reused and shared are considered open and lie at one end of the spectrum while non-documented , proprietary specifications , proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions , i.e .
the " not invented here " syndrome , lie at the other end .
By placing open on one and of the spectrum , and closed on the other , they very clearly are stating that the two are opposites .
And to me , that seems like a perfectly fair and accurate description of the range of openness that exists in information systems and standards .
Moreover , they conclude the section on openness with this recommendation : Recommendation 5 .
Public administrations should favour openness when working together to establish European Public Service while taking into account their priorities and constraints .
Do you not see that by distorting their words to advance your own agenda , and attributing to them malicious intent without any basis in fact , you undermine the very cause which you pretend to champion ?
Is that what you want to do ?
Do you really want to undermine the credibility of those who advocate for free and open standards , especially in the public sector ?
Here is the full text of the section on oppenness , so that everyone can see it in its entirety , and draw their own conclusions.2.10 Underlying Principle 9 : Openness Within the context of the EIF , openness is the willingness of persons , organisations or other members of a community of interest to share knowledge and to stimulate debate within that community of interest , having as ultimate goal the advancement of knowledge and the use thereof to solve relevant problems .
In that sense , openness leads to considerable gains in efficiency .
Interoperability involves the sharing of information and knowledge between organisations , hence implies a certain degree of openness .
There are varying degrees of openness .
The spectrum of approaches that lies between these two extremes can be called the openness continuum .
European public administrations need to decide where they wish to position themselves on this continuum with respect to the issues discussed in the EIF .
The exact position may vary , on a case-by-case basis , depending on their needs , priorities , legacy , budget , market situation and a number of other factors .
While there is a correlation between openness and interoperability , it is also true that interoperability can be obtained without openness , for example via homogeneity of the ICT systems , which implies that all partners use , or agree to use , the same solution to implement a European Public Service .
Recommendation 5 .
Public administrations should favour openness when working together to establish European Public Service while taking into account their priorities and constraints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With your selective quoting, and careful omissions, you have distorted and misrepresented what they have actually said.
They never defined, nor attempted to redefine closed as open.
In fact, they fully recognize and accurately define what constitutes "Open" and carefully noted that closed, propietary software and standards lie on the opposite end of the spectrum, or continuum.
Here is the full, fair, non-distorted quote:Specifications, software and software development methods that promote collaboration and the results
of  which  can  freely  be  accessed,  reused  and  shared  are  considered  open  and  lie  at  one  end  of  the spectrum while non-documented, proprietary specifications, proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions, i.e.
the "not invented here" syndrome, lie at the other end.
By placing open on one and of the spectrum, and closed on the other, they very clearly are stating that the two are opposites.
And to me, that seems like a perfectly fair and accurate description of the range of openness that exists in information systems and standards.
Moreover, they conclude the section on openness with this recommendation:Recommendation 5.
Public  administrations  should  favour  openness  when  working  together  to
establish European Public Service while taking into account their priorities and constraints.
Do you not see that by distorting their words to advance your own agenda, and attributing to them malicious intent without any basis in fact, you undermine the very cause which you pretend to champion?
Is that what you want to do?
Do you really want to undermine the credibility of those who advocate for free and open standards, especially in the public sector?
Here is the full text of the section on oppenness, so that everyone can see it in its entirety, and draw their own conclusions.2.10  Underlying Principle 9: Openness  

Within the context of the EIF, openness is the willingness of persons, organisations or other members
of  a  community  of  interest  to  share  knowledge  and  to  stimulate  debate  within  that  community  of interest, having as ultimate goal  the advancement of knowledge and  the use  thereof  to solve relevant problems.
In that sense, openness leads to considerable gains in efficiency.
Interoperability  involves  the  sharing  of  information  and  knowledge  between  organisations,  hence implies a certain degree of openness.
There are varying degrees of openness.
The  spectrum  of  approaches  that  lies  between  these  two  extremes  can  be  called  the  openness
continuum.
European  public  administrations  need  to  decide  where  they  wish  to  position  themselves  on  this continuum with respect to the issues discussed in the EIF.
The exact position may vary, on a case-by-case basis, depending on their needs, priorities, legacy, budget, market situation and a number of other factors.
While  there  is  a  correlation  between  openness  and  interoperability,  it  is  also  true  that interoperability can be obtained without openness,  for example via homogeneity of  the  ICT systems, which implies that all partners use, or agree to use, the same solution to implement a European Public Service.
Recommendation 5.
Public  administrations  should  favour  openness  when  working  together  to
establish European Public Service while taking into account their priorities and constraints. 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959066</id>
	<title>Just add it to...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257176640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WAR IS PEACE<br>FREEDOM IS SLAVERY<br>IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH</p><p>PS: The Slashdot lameness filter needs to be sent to the ministry of love.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WAR IS PEACEFREEDOM IS SLAVERYIGNORANCE IS STRENGTHPS : The Slashdot lameness filter needs to be sent to the ministry of love .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WAR IS PEACEFREEDOM IS SLAVERYIGNORANCE IS STRENGTHPS: The Slashdot lameness filter needs to be sent to the ministry of love.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961666</id>
	<title>Re:Well, actually ...</title>
	<author>he-sk</author>
	<datestamp>1257248880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Punishing the wealthy" is a strawman perpetraited by those born with a silver spoon in their mouth who never had to do any real work in their life.</p><p>Get a clue. It's about leveling the playing field. The goal isn't to make everybody equal, it's to give everybody a fair shot at success as far as this is possible.</p><p>And you're deluding yourself if you think Europe is any more corrupt than the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Punishing the wealthy " is a strawman perpetraited by those born with a silver spoon in their mouth who never had to do any real work in their life.Get a clue .
It 's about leveling the playing field .
The goal is n't to make everybody equal , it 's to give everybody a fair shot at success as far as this is possible.And you 're deluding yourself if you think Europe is any more corrupt than the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Punishing the wealthy" is a strawman perpetraited by those born with a silver spoon in their mouth who never had to do any real work in their life.Get a clue.
It's about leveling the playing field.
The goal isn't to make everybody equal, it's to give everybody a fair shot at success as far as this is possible.And you're deluding yourself if you think Europe is any more corrupt than the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29963110</id>
	<title>Re:Well, actually ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257261840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When interviewing politicians about their decision, they said they are "open" to comments</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When interviewing politicians about their decision , they said they are " open " to comments</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When interviewing politicians about their decision, they said they are "open" to comments</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958406</id>
	<title>THOSE GODDAMN MOTHER FUCKERS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257173160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>AAAAAAH! Fuck!</b> How dare those...those horsesock-sucking <b>chest-shitters!</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>AAAAAAH !
Fuck ! How dare those...those horsesock-sucking chest-shitters !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AAAAAAH!
Fuck! How dare those...those horsesock-sucking chest-shitters!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29964108</id>
	<title>Re:Original article is misrepresented</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257266940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you're right but, read the article carefully, there is a clear shift taking place.</p><p>We, economically, can't afford to keep msft afloat... the innovation they bring to the market is pure bullshit.<br>I hope the EU and the USA will see the light soon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you 're right but , read the article carefully , there is a clear shift taking place.We , economically , ca n't afford to keep msft afloat... the innovation they bring to the market is pure bullshit.I hope the EU and the USA will see the light soon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you're right but, read the article carefully, there is a clear shift taking place.We, economically, can't afford to keep msft afloat... the innovation they bring to the market is pure bullshit.I hope the EU and the USA will see the light soon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29972324</id>
	<title>Re:To quote Beavis and Butt-head</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257259860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Uhhh, well, if nothing sucked, and everything was cool all the time, then, like, how would you know it was cool?</p></div><p>I usually have a short attention span, but you really caught my attention with that one. It might be the deepest thing I've read on slashdot. AC 'cause I would not want my employer to find out I've been slacking. And now gotta go back to coding windows 8...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhhh , well , if nothing sucked , and everything was cool all the time , then , like , how would you know it was cool ? I usually have a short attention span , but you really caught my attention with that one .
It might be the deepest thing I 've read on slashdot .
AC 'cause I would not want my employer to find out I 've been slacking .
And now got ta go back to coding windows 8.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhhh, well, if nothing sucked, and everything was cool all the time, then, like, how would you know it was cool?I usually have a short attention span, but you really caught my attention with that one.
It might be the deepest thing I've read on slashdot.
AC 'cause I would not want my employer to find out I've been slacking.
And now gotta go back to coding windows 8...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960242</id>
	<title>Nearly Pregnant, Nearly A Virgin, Nearly Rich</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1257186960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nearly Smart, Nearly Sexy, Nearly Sauve, Nearly Adequate, Nearly Famous, Nearly Infallible, Nearly Safe, Nearly There....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nearly Smart , Nearly Sexy , Nearly Sauve , Nearly Adequate , Nearly Famous , Nearly Infallible , Nearly Safe , Nearly There... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nearly Smart, Nearly Sexy, Nearly Sauve, Nearly Adequate, Nearly Famous, Nearly Infallible, Nearly Safe, Nearly There....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959284</id>
	<title>Lord corporation and his end-user vassals</title>
	<author>Logibeara</author>
	<datestamp>1257178380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The vast internet kingdom policed by the sheriff of Nautingham lawyers and Lord Bill gates extending his Feifs out to the money squandering corporations, enslaving the end-user poverty stricken vassals. But where is Robin Hood to be the great leveler?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The vast internet kingdom policed by the sheriff of Nautingham lawyers and Lord Bill gates extending his Feifs out to the money squandering corporations , enslaving the end-user poverty stricken vassals .
But where is Robin Hood to be the great leveler ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vast internet kingdom policed by the sheriff of Nautingham lawyers and Lord Bill gates extending his Feifs out to the money squandering corporations, enslaving the end-user poverty stricken vassals.
But where is Robin Hood to be the great leveler?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29973232</id>
	<title>Re:To quote Beavis and Butt-head</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1257267300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really fail to see why there is a need to define a 'spectrum' of openness in the first place. Either something is completely open and documented and is innately and de facto unencumbered for any use by any person unconditionally or it is not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really fail to see why there is a need to define a 'spectrum ' of openness in the first place .
Either something is completely open and documented and is innately and de facto unencumbered for any use by any person unconditionally or it is not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really fail to see why there is a need to define a 'spectrum' of openness in the first place.
Either something is completely open and documented and is innately and de facto unencumbered for any use by any person unconditionally or it is not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958602</id>
	<title>Continuum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" also defines an 'openness continuum' "</p><p>So - just like Creative Commons, then?</p><p>(IHNRTFA)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" also defines an 'openness continuum ' " So - just like Creative Commons , then ?
( IHNRTFA )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" also defines an 'openness continuum' "So - just like Creative Commons, then?
(IHNRTFA)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961412</id>
	<title>What is peer to peer</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1257245100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A fairly minor TV station did a (funny) disquieting gig a while back, about France's P2P 3-strikes law: they roamed the hallways of our national assembly, and asked congressmen what "peer-to-peer" was... that was right when the p2p law was being discussed and making daily headlines, mind you:</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXHuxNeasvw&amp;feature=related" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXHuxNeasvw&amp;feature=related</a> [youtube.com] , very approximative translations, for fun</p><p>- "peer to peer is being able to talk directly to people in the same situation as you, so it's very good"<br>- "I don't know... I speak French, you'll have to excuse me"<br>- "protecting creativity via internet"<br>- 'I don't know, but my sons do, I'm wondering what they're doing on my PC, by the way"<br>- "It's downloading videos, like streaming but the bits get to you hard drive"</p><p>I'm guessing Euro MPs are getting heavily lobbied, and are more confused than purely evil. What can we do to change that ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A fairly minor TV station did a ( funny ) disquieting gig a while back , about France 's P2P 3-strikes law : they roamed the hallways of our national assembly , and asked congressmen what " peer-to-peer " was... that was right when the p2p law was being discussed and making daily headlines , mind you : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = pXHuxNeasvw&amp;feature = related [ youtube.com ] , very approximative translations , for fun- " peer to peer is being able to talk directly to people in the same situation as you , so it 's very good " - " I do n't know... I speak French , you 'll have to excuse me " - " protecting creativity via internet " - 'I do n't know , but my sons do , I 'm wondering what they 're doing on my PC , by the way " - " It 's downloading videos , like streaming but the bits get to you hard drive " I 'm guessing Euro MPs are getting heavily lobbied , and are more confused than purely evil .
What can we do to change that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A fairly minor TV station did a (funny) disquieting gig a while back, about France's P2P 3-strikes law: they roamed the hallways of our national assembly, and asked congressmen what "peer-to-peer" was... that was right when the p2p law was being discussed and making daily headlines, mind you:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXHuxNeasvw&amp;feature=related [youtube.com] , very approximative translations, for fun- "peer to peer is being able to talk directly to people in the same situation as you, so it's very good"- "I don't know... I speak French, you'll have to excuse me"- "protecting creativity via internet"- 'I don't know, but my sons do, I'm wondering what they're doing on my PC, by the way"- "It's downloading videos, like streaming but the bits get to you hard drive"I'm guessing Euro MPs are getting heavily lobbied, and are more confused than purely evil.
What can we do to change that ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29964296</id>
	<title>Brace for News of backdoor Microsoft lobbying</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1257267660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in 3, 2, 1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in 3 , 2 , 1 ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in 3, 2, 1 ....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960900</id>
	<title>Embrace, extend ... extinguish</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1257280560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Guess where the EU is now.<br>
They went after the p2p format, now its on to "open source" Linux.<br>
Amazing what can be pushed after a stay at a Rothschild family villa in Greece.<br>
Did an American record executive put in a good word for US computing interests?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess where the EU is now .
They went after the p2p format , now its on to " open source " Linux .
Amazing what can be pushed after a stay at a Rothschild family villa in Greece .
Did an American record executive put in a good word for US computing interests ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess where the EU is now.
They went after the p2p format, now its on to "open source" Linux.
Amazing what can be pushed after a stay at a Rothschild family villa in Greece.
Did an American record executive put in a good word for US computing interests?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961336</id>
	<title>Openness sells itself</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1257243840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Before modding this post as Offtopic, please read it to the end.  It is relevant; you just need to read the whole thing in order to see how it is)</p><p>Just in the last 24 hours, on another forum site that I read regularly, I know a guy who has private messaged me about migrating to FreeBSD.</p><p>He has done that because, in the past, he was using either Windows, or certain Linux distributions which were heavily GUI oriented and which, for various reasons, had a much less transparent and orthogonal design.  He was having a lot of problems with those systems, in terms of both hardware driver and application stability.</p><p>He has started, as I mentioned, using FreeBSD, but despite X, he is also now using primarily text-based applications as well.  One of his messages to me about this expressed his degree of happiness at having found such a greater level of reliability, speed, and flexibility, and thanking me for gradually causing him to become interested in FreeBSD.</p><p>My point, quite simply, is this.  Openness, and openness as it specifically applies to <a href="http://catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/" title="catb.org">UNIX design philosophy</a> [catb.org], has visible, tangible, practical benefits, and ultimately sells itself.</p><p>Corporations and government institutions can say whatever they want; we don't need to worry about it one way or the other.  There is a certain demographic of users, who are increasingly becoming more and more derisive of every element of the practice of open source methodolgy, as well.  Compilation from source, and use of text-based applications are considered by that group, to be anachronisms from the 1970s.</p><p>The point is, that when the proverbial crunch comes, FOSS proves itself, and suddenly the laughing stops; to generally be replaced by mute awe.  Whether it's backpackers setting up an emergency c3 system in southeast Asia with gnuSense after the latest tsunami, <a href="http://linuxlock.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com">Helios</a> [blogspot.com] continuing, day in and day out, to build free PCs with Mint for underpriveleged kids, or a corporate sysadmin with a lone OpenBSD box, who along with his boss, watches <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffy\_(mascot)" title="wikipedia.org">Puffy</a> [wikipedia.org] dive into a phone booth and save the day when the local intranet has gone feet first, and business is threatening to grind to a halt entirely.</p><p>So if the EU's government have somehow been living in caves for the last two decades, it's not something any of us really need to get upset about.  Let them voice whatever skepticism, or even outright condemnation they want.</p><p>If they want to find out the actual truth for themselves, however, the web and FTP sites are there, and they can replicate the benefits that other people have derived from FOSS UNIX, for themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Before modding this post as Offtopic , please read it to the end .
It is relevant ; you just need to read the whole thing in order to see how it is ) Just in the last 24 hours , on another forum site that I read regularly , I know a guy who has private messaged me about migrating to FreeBSD.He has done that because , in the past , he was using either Windows , or certain Linux distributions which were heavily GUI oriented and which , for various reasons , had a much less transparent and orthogonal design .
He was having a lot of problems with those systems , in terms of both hardware driver and application stability.He has started , as I mentioned , using FreeBSD , but despite X , he is also now using primarily text-based applications as well .
One of his messages to me about this expressed his degree of happiness at having found such a greater level of reliability , speed , and flexibility , and thanking me for gradually causing him to become interested in FreeBSD.My point , quite simply , is this .
Openness , and openness as it specifically applies to UNIX design philosophy [ catb.org ] , has visible , tangible , practical benefits , and ultimately sells itself.Corporations and government institutions can say whatever they want ; we do n't need to worry about it one way or the other .
There is a certain demographic of users , who are increasingly becoming more and more derisive of every element of the practice of open source methodolgy , as well .
Compilation from source , and use of text-based applications are considered by that group , to be anachronisms from the 1970s.The point is , that when the proverbial crunch comes , FOSS proves itself , and suddenly the laughing stops ; to generally be replaced by mute awe .
Whether it 's backpackers setting up an emergency c3 system in southeast Asia with gnuSense after the latest tsunami , Helios [ blogspot.com ] continuing , day in and day out , to build free PCs with Mint for underpriveleged kids , or a corporate sysadmin with a lone OpenBSD box , who along with his boss , watches Puffy [ wikipedia.org ] dive into a phone booth and save the day when the local intranet has gone feet first , and business is threatening to grind to a halt entirely.So if the EU 's government have somehow been living in caves for the last two decades , it 's not something any of us really need to get upset about .
Let them voice whatever skepticism , or even outright condemnation they want.If they want to find out the actual truth for themselves , however , the web and FTP sites are there , and they can replicate the benefits that other people have derived from FOSS UNIX , for themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Before modding this post as Offtopic, please read it to the end.
It is relevant; you just need to read the whole thing in order to see how it is)Just in the last 24 hours, on another forum site that I read regularly, I know a guy who has private messaged me about migrating to FreeBSD.He has done that because, in the past, he was using either Windows, or certain Linux distributions which were heavily GUI oriented and which, for various reasons, had a much less transparent and orthogonal design.
He was having a lot of problems with those systems, in terms of both hardware driver and application stability.He has started, as I mentioned, using FreeBSD, but despite X, he is also now using primarily text-based applications as well.
One of his messages to me about this expressed his degree of happiness at having found such a greater level of reliability, speed, and flexibility, and thanking me for gradually causing him to become interested in FreeBSD.My point, quite simply, is this.
Openness, and openness as it specifically applies to UNIX design philosophy [catb.org], has visible, tangible, practical benefits, and ultimately sells itself.Corporations and government institutions can say whatever they want; we don't need to worry about it one way or the other.
There is a certain demographic of users, who are increasingly becoming more and more derisive of every element of the practice of open source methodolgy, as well.
Compilation from source, and use of text-based applications are considered by that group, to be anachronisms from the 1970s.The point is, that when the proverbial crunch comes, FOSS proves itself, and suddenly the laughing stops; to generally be replaced by mute awe.
Whether it's backpackers setting up an emergency c3 system in southeast Asia with gnuSense after the latest tsunami, Helios [blogspot.com] continuing, day in and day out, to build free PCs with Mint for underpriveleged kids, or a corporate sysadmin with a lone OpenBSD box, who along with his boss, watches Puffy [wikipedia.org] dive into a phone booth and save the day when the local intranet has gone feet first, and business is threatening to grind to a halt entirely.So if the EU's government have somehow been living in caves for the last two decades, it's not something any of us really need to get upset about.
Let them voice whatever skepticism, or even outright condemnation they want.If they want to find out the actual truth for themselves, however, the web and FTP sites are there, and they can replicate the benefits that other people have derived from FOSS UNIX, for themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959462</id>
	<title>Re:Well, actually ...</title>
	<author>Gerzel</author>
	<datestamp>1257180180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Money, wealth, power, flattery and the occasional sexual favour.  The usual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Money , wealth , power , flattery and the occasional sexual favour .
The usual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Money, wealth, power, flattery and the occasional sexual favour.
The usual.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29962144</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak and Redefining</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257254520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The older I get the more I realize how powerful those in power are.</p></div><p>Maybe. But this case is just an example how bad Slashdot summaries can get. The EU paper considers an openness continuum with the extremes "open" and "absolutely not open", and the Slashdot submission makes it look like the "not open" case is the new definition of "open".</p><p>To quote the EU paper:<br>"<b>There are varying degrees of openness.</b><br>Specifications, software and software development methods that promote collaboration and the results of which can freely be accessed, reused and shared <b>are considered open and lie at one end of the spectrum</b> while non-documented, proprietary specifications, proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions, <b>i.e. the "not invented here" syndrome, lie at the other end.</b>"</p><p>(Emphasize mine.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The older I get the more I realize how powerful those in power are.Maybe .
But this case is just an example how bad Slashdot summaries can get .
The EU paper considers an openness continuum with the extremes " open " and " absolutely not open " , and the Slashdot submission makes it look like the " not open " case is the new definition of " open " .To quote the EU paper : " There are varying degrees of openness.Specifications , software and software development methods that promote collaboration and the results of which can freely be accessed , reused and shared are considered open and lie at one end of the spectrum while non-documented , proprietary specifications , proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions , i.e .
the " not invented here " syndrome , lie at the other end .
" ( Emphasize mine .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The older I get the more I realize how powerful those in power are.Maybe.
But this case is just an example how bad Slashdot summaries can get.
The EU paper considers an openness continuum with the extremes "open" and "absolutely not open", and the Slashdot submission makes it look like the "not open" case is the new definition of "open".To quote the EU paper:"There are varying degrees of openness.Specifications, software and software development methods that promote collaboration and the results of which can freely be accessed, reused and shared are considered open and lie at one end of the spectrum while non-documented, proprietary specifications, proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions, i.e.
the "not invented here" syndrome, lie at the other end.
"(Emphasize mine.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958566</id>
	<title>lol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257173940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>let's all congratulate Microsoft and Apple on their "Nearly Open" source software</p><p>*golf clap*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>let 's all congratulate Microsoft and Apple on their " Nearly Open " source software * golf clap *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>let's all congratulate Microsoft and Apple on their "Nearly Open" source software*golf clap*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29962882</id>
	<title>Re:Well, actually ...</title>
	<author>Veretax</author>
	<datestamp>1257260760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This reminds me of the Pixar Movie the Incredibles, where the Villian "Syndrome" says "He'll make everyone super, and when everyone is super, no one will be."

When you try to make everything equal you end up lowering standards, and hurting those among us who are truly exceptional.  That isn't smart for a country that needs smarts to solve its problems.  Granted I'm not happy with several things, namely the educational system.  It should not be about having common standards it should be about achieving a high base standard of education.  The current system really dumbs things down, and plays to the lower end of the spectrum leaving the truly bright and gifted, bored, or worse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of the Pixar Movie the Incredibles , where the Villian " Syndrome " says " He 'll make everyone super , and when everyone is super , no one will be .
" When you try to make everything equal you end up lowering standards , and hurting those among us who are truly exceptional .
That is n't smart for a country that needs smarts to solve its problems .
Granted I 'm not happy with several things , namely the educational system .
It should not be about having common standards it should be about achieving a high base standard of education .
The current system really dumbs things down , and plays to the lower end of the spectrum leaving the truly bright and gifted , bored , or worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of the Pixar Movie the Incredibles, where the Villian "Syndrome" says "He'll make everyone super, and when everyone is super, no one will be.
"

When you try to make everything equal you end up lowering standards, and hurting those among us who are truly exceptional.
That isn't smart for a country that needs smarts to solve its problems.
Granted I'm not happy with several things, namely the educational system.
It should not be about having common standards it should be about achieving a high base standard of education.
The current system really dumbs things down, and plays to the lower end of the spectrum leaving the truly bright and gifted, bored, or worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961532</id>
	<title>European Interoperability Framework</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1257247500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just who exactly was involved in drafting the 'European Interoperability Framework' ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just who exactly was involved in drafting the 'European Interoperability Framework ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just who exactly was involved in drafting the 'European Interoperability Framework' ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960680</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak and Redefining</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257191280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please define one moment in human history when the example you cite was <b>not</b> the case.  The study of history is a powerful anecdote to those who think their lives are novel and unique, and who heavily criticize our own society for not living up to some sort of Kantian ideal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please define one moment in human history when the example you cite was not the case .
The study of history is a powerful anecdote to those who think their lives are novel and unique , and who heavily criticize our own society for not living up to some sort of Kantian ideal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please define one moment in human history when the example you cite was not the case.
The study of history is a powerful anecdote to those who think their lives are novel and unique, and who heavily criticize our own society for not living up to some sort of Kantian ideal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961170</id>
	<title>Re:They don't say what you accuse them of saying</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1257241080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>With your selective quoting, and careful omissions, you have distorted and misrepresented what they have actually said. </i> <p>Hell yeah!  The man deserves a job with the New York Times or other mainstream media.  Come on, don't even pretend that the pros don't use this tactic when they have an agenda to push.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With your selective quoting , and careful omissions , you have distorted and misrepresented what they have actually said .
Hell yeah !
The man deserves a job with the New York Times or other mainstream media .
Come on , do n't even pretend that the pros do n't use this tactic when they have an agenda to push .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With your selective quoting, and careful omissions, you have distorted and misrepresented what they have actually said.
Hell yeah!
The man deserves a job with the New York Times or other mainstream media.
Come on, don't even pretend that the pros don't use this tactic when they have an agenda to push.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961456</id>
	<title>My new definition of paying taxes</title>
	<author>janwedekind</author>
	<datestamp>1257246000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Analogous to the EIF's definition of Open Source Software (OSS), paying taxes is the willingness of persons, organisations or other members of a mixed source community obtaining salaries to share information about their financial status and to stimulate a debate with the revenue authorities, having as ultimate goal a mutual understanding of the situation and a strong basis for a healthy debate. In that sense, paying taxes leads to a quick turnaround of our fiscal status and strengthens the economy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Analogous to the EIF 's definition of Open Source Software ( OSS ) , paying taxes is the willingness of persons , organisations or other members of a mixed source community obtaining salaries to share information about their financial status and to stimulate a debate with the revenue authorities , having as ultimate goal a mutual understanding of the situation and a strong basis for a healthy debate .
In that sense , paying taxes leads to a quick turnaround of our fiscal status and strengthens the economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Analogous to the EIF's definition of Open Source Software (OSS), paying taxes is the willingness of persons, organisations or other members of a mixed source community obtaining salaries to share information about their financial status and to stimulate a debate with the revenue authorities, having as ultimate goal a mutual understanding of the situation and a strong basis for a healthy debate.
In that sense, paying taxes leads to a quick turnaround of our fiscal status and strengthens the economy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29962646</id>
	<title>Re:They don't say what you accuse them of saying</title>
	<author>nutshell42</author>
	<datestamp>1257259080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let me add that the reason the whole thing sounds so vague is that they're defining the terms for the debate about interoperability of different public services. It's not about specific implementations or whatever. It is necessarily vague because its point is that when EC, EP and council try to enact a new directive on interoperability in a specific field they need common terms and recommendations as a baseline for said directive that will be less vague.<p>

And even then it's not true that the draft doesn't talk about implementations:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>5.2.1 Specifications, openness and re-use</b>
</p><p>
The possibility of sharing and re-using service components based on formalised specification depends
on the openness of the specifications.
If the principle of openness is applied in full:
</p><ul>
<li> All stakeholders can contribute to the elaboration of the specification and public review is
organised;</li>
<li> The specification document is freely available for everybody to study and to share with
others;</li>
<li> The specification can be implemented under the different software development approaches.</li>
</ul><p>

It is up to the creators of any particular specification to decide how open they want their specification
to be.</p><p>
Because of their positive effect on interoperability, the use of open specifications, characterised by the
three features mentioned above, as well as sharing and re-use, have been promoted in many policy
statements and are encouraged in the context of European Public Services delivery.</p><p>
However, public administrations may decide to use less open specifications, especially in cases where
open specifications do not meet the functional interoperability needs or the ones available are not
mature and/or sufficiently supported by the market, or where all cooperating organisations already use
or agree to use the same technologies.</p><p>
<b>Recommendation 22.</b> Other things being equal, public administrations should prefer open
specifications when establishing European Public Services.</p></div><p>I can certainly agree with that. There definitely are areas where open standards don't exist or aren't used enough to be helpful.</p><p>
e.g. Flash for audio and video on webpages. Yes, Html 5 has the video-tag but it will be half a decade before it's supported by a similar number of browsers as have flash installed. And while flash exists at the whim of Adobe, just about any system under the sun can get it to work one way or other.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me add that the reason the whole thing sounds so vague is that they 're defining the terms for the debate about interoperability of different public services .
It 's not about specific implementations or whatever .
It is necessarily vague because its point is that when EC , EP and council try to enact a new directive on interoperability in a specific field they need common terms and recommendations as a baseline for said directive that will be less vague .
And even then it 's not true that the draft does n't talk about implementations : 5.2.1 Specifications , openness and re-use The possibility of sharing and re-using service components based on formalised specification depends on the openness of the specifications .
If the principle of openness is applied in full : All stakeholders can contribute to the elaboration of the specification and public review is organised ; The specification document is freely available for everybody to study and to share with others ; The specification can be implemented under the different software development approaches .
It is up to the creators of any particular specification to decide how open they want their specification to be .
Because of their positive effect on interoperability , the use of open specifications , characterised by the three features mentioned above , as well as sharing and re-use , have been promoted in many policy statements and are encouraged in the context of European Public Services delivery .
However , public administrations may decide to use less open specifications , especially in cases where open specifications do not meet the functional interoperability needs or the ones available are not mature and/or sufficiently supported by the market , or where all cooperating organisations already use or agree to use the same technologies .
Recommendation 22 .
Other things being equal , public administrations should prefer open specifications when establishing European Public Services.I can certainly agree with that .
There definitely are areas where open standards do n't exist or are n't used enough to be helpful .
e.g. Flash for audio and video on webpages .
Yes , Html 5 has the video-tag but it will be half a decade before it 's supported by a similar number of browsers as have flash installed .
And while flash exists at the whim of Adobe , just about any system under the sun can get it to work one way or other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me add that the reason the whole thing sounds so vague is that they're defining the terms for the debate about interoperability of different public services.
It's not about specific implementations or whatever.
It is necessarily vague because its point is that when EC, EP and council try to enact a new directive on interoperability in a specific field they need common terms and recommendations as a baseline for said directive that will be less vague.
And even then it's not true that the draft doesn't talk about implementations: 5.2.1 Specifications, openness and re-use

The possibility of sharing and re-using service components based on formalised specification depends
on the openness of the specifications.
If the principle of openness is applied in full:

 All stakeholders can contribute to the elaboration of the specification and public review is
organised;
 The specification document is freely available for everybody to study and to share with
others;
 The specification can be implemented under the different software development approaches.
It is up to the creators of any particular specification to decide how open they want their specification
to be.
Because of their positive effect on interoperability, the use of open specifications, characterised by the
three features mentioned above, as well as sharing and re-use, have been promoted in many policy
statements and are encouraged in the context of European Public Services delivery.
However, public administrations may decide to use less open specifications, especially in cases where
open specifications do not meet the functional interoperability needs or the ones available are not
mature and/or sufficiently supported by the market, or where all cooperating organisations already use
or agree to use the same technologies.
Recommendation 22.
Other things being equal, public administrations should prefer open
specifications when establishing European Public Services.I can certainly agree with that.
There definitely are areas where open standards don't exist or aren't used enough to be helpful.
e.g. Flash for audio and video on webpages.
Yes, Html 5 has the video-tag but it will be half a decade before it's supported by a similar number of browsers as have flash installed.
And while flash exists at the whim of Adobe, just about any system under the sun can get it to work one way or other.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958398</id>
	<title>Well, actually ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257173100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Looks like 'closed' is the new 'open' in the EU.</p></div><p>Actually, it looks like "corrupt" is the same old corrupt that it's always been. Gotta wonder just what changed hands to make that happen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like 'closed ' is the new 'open ' in the EU.Actually , it looks like " corrupt " is the same old corrupt that it 's always been .
Got ta wonder just what changed hands to make that happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like 'closed' is the new 'open' in the EU.Actually, it looks like "corrupt" is the same old corrupt that it's always been.
Gotta wonder just what changed hands to make that happen.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29963500</id>
	<title>Re:They don't say what you accuse them of saying</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1257264120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What's even worse is that it gets by people whose only job is to check this stuff out before posting it to the front page of a widely read website.</i></p><p>That is not and never has been their job:</p><blockquote><div><p>How do you verify the accuracy of Slashdot stories?</p><p>We don't. You do.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) If something seems outrageous, we might look for some corroboration, but as a rule, we regard this as the responsibility of the submitter and the audience.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's taken from <a href="http://slashdot.org/faq/editorial.shtml#ed750" title="slashdot.org">the FAQ</a> [slashdot.org].</p><p>Now I'm not saying that that's how it *should* be, but that's how it *is*.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's even worse is that it gets by people whose only job is to check this stuff out before posting it to the front page of a widely read website.That is not and never has been their job : How do you verify the accuracy of Slashdot stories ? We do n't .
You do .
: ) If something seems outrageous , we might look for some corroboration , but as a rule , we regard this as the responsibility of the submitter and the audience.That 's taken from the FAQ [ slashdot.org ] .Now I 'm not saying that that 's how it * should * be , but that 's how it * is * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's even worse is that it gets by people whose only job is to check this stuff out before posting it to the front page of a widely read website.That is not and never has been their job:How do you verify the accuracy of Slashdot stories?We don't.
You do.
:) If something seems outrageous, we might look for some corroboration, but as a rule, we regard this as the responsibility of the submitter and the audience.That's taken from the FAQ [slashdot.org].Now I'm not saying that that's how it *should* be, but that's how it *is*.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958990</id>
	<title>To quote Beavis and Butt-head</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257176160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Butt-head:</b> Uhhh, well, if nothing sucked, and everything was cool all the time, then, like, how would you know it was cool?</p></div><p>Essentially, that's what they're saying here.  They include closed software on the "openness" spectrum because it's necessary as a basis for comparison.  Zero openness is still a value of openness.</p><p>Maybe there's an attempt to redefine open source software to the benefit of companies who sell proprietary software, but this particular bit isn't the proper evidence for it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Butt-head : Uhhh , well , if nothing sucked , and everything was cool all the time , then , like , how would you know it was cool ? Essentially , that 's what they 're saying here .
They include closed software on the " openness " spectrum because it 's necessary as a basis for comparison .
Zero openness is still a value of openness.Maybe there 's an attempt to redefine open source software to the benefit of companies who sell proprietary software , but this particular bit is n't the proper evidence for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Butt-head: Uhhh, well, if nothing sucked, and everything was cool all the time, then, like, how would you know it was cool?Essentially, that's what they're saying here.
They include closed software on the "openness" spectrum because it's necessary as a basis for comparison.
Zero openness is still a value of openness.Maybe there's an attempt to redefine open source software to the benefit of companies who sell proprietary software, but this particular bit isn't the proper evidence for it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959572</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it?</title>
	<author>registrar</author>
	<datestamp>1257181080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PDF is pretty open, but that's not open enough for my liking.  The standard mandates that any implementation honour the dopier "protections" in PDF documents ("Conforming readers shall respect the intent of the document creator by restricting user access to an encrypted PDF file according to the permissions contained in the file.")  Honour them means you're bound to write a stupid implementation of DRM; fail to honour them and you get sued.</p><p>For example, I have a PDF file on my computer for which I do not have permission to save a copy (or print, etc.).  That's right, I don't have permission to <i>save</i> the file.  Fortunately I have a ready work-around for "saving" the file (i.e. copy it within the Finder), but seeing the Finder itself is (or, embeds) a capable PDF reader, I wonder if Apple isn't in violation of the standard by allowing their OS (which can interpret PDFs) to copy such files.</p><p>A file format is a structure for exchanging information between programs; a standard should be limited to describing that structure.  The problem is that Adobe &amp;c have extended the notion of "file format" to cover their intentions for behaviour of programs making use of that format.</p><p>Now I really wouldn't care if there was simply some kind of branding/trademark that allowed Adobe and mates to honour DRM within PDF readers and writers.  If I want to make my own PDF reader/writer that doesn't fully honour the standard, then I have the option and can't use the trademark... but the fact that patents could be used to enforce the intent of the standard author means that the standard is not open enough.  The GP's requirement needs to be that the standard not be patent encumbered <i>in any way whatsoever.</i> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PDF is pretty open , but that 's not open enough for my liking .
The standard mandates that any implementation honour the dopier " protections " in PDF documents ( " Conforming readers shall respect the intent of the document creator by restricting user access to an encrypted PDF file according to the permissions contained in the file .
" ) Honour them means you 're bound to write a stupid implementation of DRM ; fail to honour them and you get sued.For example , I have a PDF file on my computer for which I do not have permission to save a copy ( or print , etc. ) .
That 's right , I do n't have permission to save the file .
Fortunately I have a ready work-around for " saving " the file ( i.e .
copy it within the Finder ) , but seeing the Finder itself is ( or , embeds ) a capable PDF reader , I wonder if Apple is n't in violation of the standard by allowing their OS ( which can interpret PDFs ) to copy such files.A file format is a structure for exchanging information between programs ; a standard should be limited to describing that structure .
The problem is that Adobe &amp;c have extended the notion of " file format " to cover their intentions for behaviour of programs making use of that format.Now I really would n't care if there was simply some kind of branding/trademark that allowed Adobe and mates to honour DRM within PDF readers and writers .
If I want to make my own PDF reader/writer that does n't fully honour the standard , then I have the option and ca n't use the trademark... but the fact that patents could be used to enforce the intent of the standard author means that the standard is not open enough .
The GP 's requirement needs to be that the standard not be patent encumbered in any way whatsoever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PDF is pretty open, but that's not open enough for my liking.
The standard mandates that any implementation honour the dopier "protections" in PDF documents ("Conforming readers shall respect the intent of the document creator by restricting user access to an encrypted PDF file according to the permissions contained in the file.
")  Honour them means you're bound to write a stupid implementation of DRM; fail to honour them and you get sued.For example, I have a PDF file on my computer for which I do not have permission to save a copy (or print, etc.).
That's right, I don't have permission to save the file.
Fortunately I have a ready work-around for "saving" the file (i.e.
copy it within the Finder), but seeing the Finder itself is (or, embeds) a capable PDF reader, I wonder if Apple isn't in violation of the standard by allowing their OS (which can interpret PDFs) to copy such files.A file format is a structure for exchanging information between programs; a standard should be limited to describing that structure.
The problem is that Adobe &amp;c have extended the notion of "file format" to cover their intentions for behaviour of programs making use of that format.Now I really wouldn't care if there was simply some kind of branding/trademark that allowed Adobe and mates to honour DRM within PDF readers and writers.
If I want to make my own PDF reader/writer that doesn't fully honour the standard, then I have the option and can't use the trademark... but the fact that patents could be used to enforce the intent of the standard author means that the standard is not open enough.
The GP's requirement needs to be that the standard not be patent encumbered in any way whatsoever. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959772</id>
	<title>Cut out the "Idiocracy" tag, guys.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257182940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Goddamn!  Who are the idiots who keep tagging everything idiocracy?  It's pretty annoying.  Is it supposed to be clever?</p><p>I'm checking "No Karma Bonus" since I'm posting off-topic on purpose.  Sorry, but after the last few articles randomly tagged "idiocracy", I couldn't hold it in anymore.  Mod me how you will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goddamn !
Who are the idiots who keep tagging everything idiocracy ?
It 's pretty annoying .
Is it supposed to be clever ? I 'm checking " No Karma Bonus " since I 'm posting off-topic on purpose .
Sorry , but after the last few articles randomly tagged " idiocracy " , I could n't hold it in anymore .
Mod me how you will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goddamn!
Who are the idiots who keep tagging everything idiocracy?
It's pretty annoying.
Is it supposed to be clever?I'm checking "No Karma Bonus" since I'm posting off-topic on purpose.
Sorry, but after the last few articles randomly tagged "idiocracy", I couldn't hold it in anymore.
Mod me how you will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961542</id>
	<title>Re:They don't say what you accuse them of saying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257247560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I smell a kdawson post here, and i am even not a bearded<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.-er, the summary has all the traditional attributes. not that hard to recognize, really</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I smell a kdawson post here , and i am even not a bearded /.-er , the summary has all the traditional attributes .
not that hard to recognize , really</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I smell a kdawson post here, and i am even not a bearded /.-er, the summary has all the traditional attributes.
not that hard to recognize, really</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960874</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257280140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to be under the false assumption that they had any interest in defining "open" that way. Ask yourself: Who would befit from something?<br>And then ask: What control over the government do those ones have?<br>Then you will know what will happen.</p><p>But don't make the beginner's error of thinking that the "general public" had any control! Because they can only choose which of the groups of straw-men that are offered to them they will take.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to be under the false assumption that they had any interest in defining " open " that way .
Ask yourself : Who would befit from something ? And then ask : What control over the government do those ones have ? Then you will know what will happen.But do n't make the beginner 's error of thinking that the " general public " had any control !
Because they can only choose which of the groups of straw-men that are offered to them they will take .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to be under the false assumption that they had any interest in defining "open" that way.
Ask yourself: Who would befit from something?And then ask: What control over the government do those ones have?Then you will know what will happen.But don't make the beginner's error of thinking that the "general public" had any control!
Because they can only choose which of the groups of straw-men that are offered to them they will take.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960968</id>
	<title>Original article is misrepresented</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257281400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This post is simply wrong. The poster has completely distorted the message in the original text by using unfair citing methods.<br>If you actually read the article, it defines the openness continuum as the range *between* "freely [---] accessed, reused and shared" and "non-documented, proprietary software". Not very groundbreaking or controversial.<br>Boring.</p><p>On the other hand, it is obvious that nearly all responders with strong opinions on the matter also have not bothered to read the article.<br>Interesting?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This post is simply wrong .
The poster has completely distorted the message in the original text by using unfair citing methods.If you actually read the article , it defines the openness continuum as the range * between * " freely [ --- ] accessed , reused and shared " and " non-documented , proprietary software " .
Not very groundbreaking or controversial.Boring.On the other hand , it is obvious that nearly all responders with strong opinions on the matter also have not bothered to read the article.Interesting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post is simply wrong.
The poster has completely distorted the message in the original text by using unfair citing methods.If you actually read the article, it defines the openness continuum as the range *between* "freely [---] accessed, reused and shared" and "non-documented, proprietary software".
Not very groundbreaking or controversial.Boring.On the other hand, it is obvious that nearly all responders with strong opinions on the matter also have not bothered to read the article.Interesting?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961420</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak and Redefining</title>
	<author>innerweb</author>
	<datestamp>1257245220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To answer your request, I quote myself, <i>"The rich and powerful and greedy have always been and always will be the rich and powerful and greedy"</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To answer your request , I quote myself , " The rich and powerful and greedy have always been and always will be the rich and powerful and greedy " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To answer your request, I quote myself, "The rich and powerful and greedy have always been and always will be the rich and powerful and greedy".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961648</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257248700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the environmental directives of the EU there is a principle of using the best available technology, the availability implying a technology which is not patent encumbered, among other things. Of course, this a reach really (for the eurocrats) but perhaps something to consider in this formation of ah-so-trendy electronic government.<br>The reasons for using unencumbered technology would be even more convincing considering the differences between a digital government and an industrial process having an environmental effect. The government is should not be profitable, the industrial process should. The government (institution) should be able function in the scale of rise and fall of independent nations, while being capable of reading the documents the successive governments have produced. The industrial process should work as long as it is sufficiently profitable and is not deemed dangerous or illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the environmental directives of the EU there is a principle of using the best available technology , the availability implying a technology which is not patent encumbered , among other things .
Of course , this a reach really ( for the eurocrats ) but perhaps something to consider in this formation of ah-so-trendy electronic government.The reasons for using unencumbered technology would be even more convincing considering the differences between a digital government and an industrial process having an environmental effect .
The government is should not be profitable , the industrial process should .
The government ( institution ) should be able function in the scale of rise and fall of independent nations , while being capable of reading the documents the successive governments have produced .
The industrial process should work as long as it is sufficiently profitable and is not deemed dangerous or illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the environmental directives of the EU there is a principle of using the best available technology, the availability implying a technology which is not patent encumbered, among other things.
Of course, this a reach really (for the eurocrats) but perhaps something to consider in this formation of ah-so-trendy electronic government.The reasons for using unencumbered technology would be even more convincing considering the differences between a digital government and an industrial process having an environmental effect.
The government is should not be profitable, the industrial process should.
The government (institution) should be able function in the scale of rise and fall of independent nations, while being capable of reading the documents the successive governments have produced.
The industrial process should work as long as it is sufficiently profitable and is not deemed dangerous or illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961720</id>
	<title>Open Standards not Open Source</title>
	<author>PensivePeter</author>
	<datestamp>1257249660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The biggest issue for the European Interoperability framework is that its first version pissed nearly everyone off by failing at every definition.<br>
The biggest hurdle was to support "open standards" with an objective definition that <em>didn't</em> cut the European Standards Organisations (ESOs) out of the institutional picture. Of the three ESOs, two of their business models are based on selling copies of their standards to make money - which flies in the face of the part of the "open standard" definition that requires free access...<br>
The issue of a "spectrum of openness" is only a secondary issue, invesnted to help around that dilemma: instead of a boolean "this is | is not an open standard", the compromise was to have instead a scale. Who gets to judge where something sits on the spectrum? Well, that now is the sticking point. Best bets would be for an agreed set of criteria, but let any agency who wants to use a particular standard make up their own mind.<br>
This will mean that some will conclude that MSFT Office OOXML is totally open and others that it sucks; or that IETF RFC 2616 is totally open and others that it's managed by a non-recognised standards body, and therefore is not a standard....<br>
This will run and run...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest issue for the European Interoperability framework is that its first version pissed nearly everyone off by failing at every definition .
The biggest hurdle was to support " open standards " with an objective definition that did n't cut the European Standards Organisations ( ESOs ) out of the institutional picture .
Of the three ESOs , two of their business models are based on selling copies of their standards to make money - which flies in the face of the part of the " open standard " definition that requires free access.. . The issue of a " spectrum of openness " is only a secondary issue , invesnted to help around that dilemma : instead of a boolean " this is | is not an open standard " , the compromise was to have instead a scale .
Who gets to judge where something sits on the spectrum ?
Well , that now is the sticking point .
Best bets would be for an agreed set of criteria , but let any agency who wants to use a particular standard make up their own mind .
This will mean that some will conclude that MSFT Office OOXML is totally open and others that it sucks ; or that IETF RFC 2616 is totally open and others that it 's managed by a non-recognised standards body , and therefore is not a standard... . This will run and run.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest issue for the European Interoperability framework is that its first version pissed nearly everyone off by failing at every definition.
The biggest hurdle was to support "open standards" with an objective definition that didn't cut the European Standards Organisations (ESOs) out of the institutional picture.
Of the three ESOs, two of their business models are based on selling copies of their standards to make money - which flies in the face of the part of the "open standard" definition that requires free access...
The issue of a "spectrum of openness" is only a secondary issue, invesnted to help around that dilemma: instead of a boolean "this is | is not an open standard", the compromise was to have instead a scale.
Who gets to judge where something sits on the spectrum?
Well, that now is the sticking point.
Best bets would be for an agreed set of criteria, but let any agency who wants to use a particular standard make up their own mind.
This will mean that some will conclude that MSFT Office OOXML is totally open and others that it sucks; or that IETF RFC 2616 is totally open and others that it's managed by a non-recognised standards body, and therefore is not a standard....
This will run and run...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960686</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it?</title>
	<author>Kynde</author>
	<datestamp>1257191340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How hard is it to define open as</i></p><p><i>A) Open specs<br>B) An open implementation of those specs both on<br>C) Not patent encumbered<br></i></p><p>Apparently not trivial, since two thirds of your requirements adopt recursion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How hard is it to define open asA ) Open specsB ) An open implementation of those specs both onC ) Not patent encumberedApparently not trivial , since two thirds of your requirements adopt recursion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How hard is it to define open asA) Open specsB) An open implementation of those specs both onC) Not patent encumberedApparently not trivial, since two thirds of your requirements adopt recursion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958760</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it?</title>
	<author>danlip</author>
	<datestamp>1257175080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>not sure how "open" PDF really is but its pretty universal</p></div><p>Wikipedia says "Formerly a proprietary format, PDF was officially released as an open standard on July 1, 2008, and published by the International Organization for Standardization as ISO/IEC 32000-1:2008".  It also says Adobe has patents on it "but licenses them for royalty-free use in developing software complying with its PDF specification".</p><p>even if that wasn't the case there has long been a lot of fully compatible implementations of it (unlike Word).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>not sure how " open " PDF really is but its pretty universalWikipedia says " Formerly a proprietary format , PDF was officially released as an open standard on July 1 , 2008 , and published by the International Organization for Standardization as ISO/IEC 32000-1 : 2008 " .
It also says Adobe has patents on it " but licenses them for royalty-free use in developing software complying with its PDF specification " .even if that was n't the case there has long been a lot of fully compatible implementations of it ( unlike Word ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not sure how "open" PDF really is but its pretty universalWikipedia says "Formerly a proprietary format, PDF was officially released as an open standard on July 1, 2008, and published by the International Organization for Standardization as ISO/IEC 32000-1:2008".
It also says Adobe has patents on it "but licenses them for royalty-free use in developing software complying with its PDF specification".even if that wasn't the case there has long been a lot of fully compatible implementations of it (unlike Word).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29967802</id>
	<title>You just need fuzzy logic</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1257241020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft Word has a 100\% membership in the proprietary software set and 0\% membership in the open source software set. See, no problem!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft Word has a 100 \ % membership in the proprietary software set and 0 \ % membership in the open source software set .
See , no problem !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft Word has a 100\% membership in the proprietary software set and 0\% membership in the open source software set.
See, no problem!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29962818</id>
	<title>Damn right!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257260340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anything not given the Richard Stallman Seal of Approval is obviously closed-source and evil, whilst that which has been deemed satisfactory by Lord Stallman is perfect and free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything not given the Richard Stallman Seal of Approval is obviously closed-source and evil , whilst that which has been deemed satisfactory by Lord Stallman is perfect and free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything not given the Richard Stallman Seal of Approval is obviously closed-source and evil, whilst that which has been deemed satisfactory by Lord Stallman is perfect and free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438</id>
	<title>How hard is it?</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1257173340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>How hard is it to define open as <br> <br>

A) Open specs <br>
B) An open implementation of those specs both on  <br>
C) Not patent encumbered <br> <br> <br>

For just about everything there is a suitable open format. Lets see here: <br> <br>

Images? There are many <br>
Audio? Ogg Vorbis <br>
Video? Ogg Theora <br>
Document? ODF or PDF (not sure how "open" PDF really is but its pretty universal) <br> <br>

There isn't a single thing that governments really need that isn't open or can be created for less cost than contracting it to proprietary vendors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How hard is it to define open as A ) Open specs B ) An open implementation of those specs both on C ) Not patent encumbered For just about everything there is a suitable open format .
Lets see here : Images ?
There are many Audio ?
Ogg Vorbis Video ?
Ogg Theora Document ?
ODF or PDF ( not sure how " open " PDF really is but its pretty universal ) There is n't a single thing that governments really need that is n't open or can be created for less cost than contracting it to proprietary vendors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How hard is it to define open as  

A) Open specs 
B) An open implementation of those specs both on  
C) Not patent encumbered   

For just about everything there is a suitable open format.
Lets see here:  

Images?
There are many 
Audio?
Ogg Vorbis 
Video?
Ogg Theora 
Document?
ODF or PDF (not sure how "open" PDF really is but its pretty universal)  

There isn't a single thing that governments really need that isn't open or can be created for less cost than contracting it to proprietary vendors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961824</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it?</title>
	<author>molecular</author>
	<datestamp>1257250560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Images? There are many</p><p>Audio? Ogg Vorbis</p><p>Video? Ogg Theora</p><p>Document? ODF or PDF (not sure how "open" PDF really is but its pretty universal)</p></div><p>Ahaaa! Gotcha right there. Looks like you just proposed to define some sort of an 'openness continuum' there, by adding something that is not open, but merely 'pretty universal'. So who bribed you and how much did it cost them?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Images ?
There are manyAudio ?
Ogg VorbisVideo ?
Ogg TheoraDocument ?
ODF or PDF ( not sure how " open " PDF really is but its pretty universal ) Ahaaa !
Gotcha right there .
Looks like you just proposed to define some sort of an 'openness continuum ' there , by adding something that is not open , but merely 'pretty universal' .
So who bribed you and how much did it cost them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Images?
There are manyAudio?
Ogg VorbisVideo?
Ogg TheoraDocument?
ODF or PDF (not sure how "open" PDF really is but its pretty universal)Ahaaa!
Gotcha right there.
Looks like you just proposed to define some sort of an 'openness continuum' there, by adding something that is not open, but merely 'pretty universal'.
So who bribed you and how much did it cost them?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958414</id>
	<title>"Closed" as "Nearly Open" ...</title>
	<author>Korbeau</author>
	<datestamp>1257173220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, that's what they always say at first, you have to work your way<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that 's what they always say at first , you have to work your way .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that's what they always say at first, you have to work your way ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961404</id>
	<title>Re:They don't say what you accuse them of saying</title>
	<author>gsslay</author>
	<datestamp>1257244980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you not see that by distorting their words to advance your own agenda, and attributing to them malicious intent without any basis in fact, you undermine the very cause which you pretend to champion?</p></div><p>This is slashdot.  People submit stories for many reasons, but high in the list for many is a desire to create a stir and draw attention.   So the very cause being championed here is "Look at me! Outrage! Look at me! Horror!"</p><p>Accuracy, fairness and the cause of the greater good don't get much of a look in after that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you not see that by distorting their words to advance your own agenda , and attributing to them malicious intent without any basis in fact , you undermine the very cause which you pretend to champion ? This is slashdot .
People submit stories for many reasons , but high in the list for many is a desire to create a stir and draw attention .
So the very cause being championed here is " Look at me !
Outrage ! Look at me !
Horror ! " Accuracy , fairness and the cause of the greater good do n't get much of a look in after that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you not see that by distorting their words to advance your own agenda, and attributing to them malicious intent without any basis in fact, you undermine the very cause which you pretend to champion?This is slashdot.
People submit stories for many reasons, but high in the list for many is a desire to create a stir and draw attention.
So the very cause being championed here is "Look at me!
Outrage! Look at me!
Horror!"Accuracy, fairness and the cause of the greater good don't get much of a look in after that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960896</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it?</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1257280500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>here isn't a single thing that governments really need that isn't open or can be created for less cost than contracting it to proprietary vendors</i></p><p>How about project management software, 3d rendering tools, Production Ready video editing tools, and automated translation middlewear?</p><p>There are definitely needs out there which are non-trivial and which Open Source software hasn't fulfilled. There are a lot that are, and many times better than paid options.  But you can't just broadly blanket mandate OSS on principle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>here is n't a single thing that governments really need that is n't open or can be created for less cost than contracting it to proprietary vendorsHow about project management software , 3d rendering tools , Production Ready video editing tools , and automated translation middlewear ? There are definitely needs out there which are non-trivial and which Open Source software has n't fulfilled .
There are a lot that are , and many times better than paid options .
But you ca n't just broadly blanket mandate OSS on principle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>here isn't a single thing that governments really need that isn't open or can be created for less cost than contracting it to proprietary vendorsHow about project management software, 3d rendering tools, Production Ready video editing tools, and automated translation middlewear?There are definitely needs out there which are non-trivial and which Open Source software hasn't fulfilled.
There are a lot that are, and many times better than paid options.
But you can't just broadly blanket mandate OSS on principle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959770</id>
	<title>Whiners</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257182880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They open up openness and you all whine.  You just can't please some people</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They open up openness and you all whine .
You just ca n't please some people</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They open up openness and you all whine.
You just can't please some people</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960818</id>
	<title>Re:They don't say what you accuse them of saying</title>
	<author>Wannabe Code Monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1257279300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Do you not see that by distorting their words to advance your own agenda, and attributing to them malicious intent without any basis in fact, you undermine the very cause which you pretend to champion? Is that what you want to do? Do you really want to undermine the credibility of those who advocate for free and open standards, especially in the public sector?</p></div></blockquote><p>Thank you. I would have modded you as Informative, but you're already at 5, and I wanted to respond anyway. I'm getting really sick at how often not just the headline is inflammatory and just plain wrong, but even the summary. I can't believe how far some people will go to twist the true nature of a thing until they can claim it stands for its exact opposite. What's even worse is that it gets by people whose only job is to check this stuff out before posting it to the front page of a widely read website. If this is the answer to print journalism dying, then maybe I should start up a subscription to my local newspaper, because the alternative is apparently much worse.</p><p>Also, I turned off the classic index just so that I could vote this story down as 'stupid' and tag it as both 'badheadline' and 'badsummary'. I suggest others do the same. Next to just not reading slashdot anymore, it appears it's the only feedback we can supply.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you not see that by distorting their words to advance your own agenda , and attributing to them malicious intent without any basis in fact , you undermine the very cause which you pretend to champion ?
Is that what you want to do ?
Do you really want to undermine the credibility of those who advocate for free and open standards , especially in the public sector ? Thank you .
I would have modded you as Informative , but you 're already at 5 , and I wanted to respond anyway .
I 'm getting really sick at how often not just the headline is inflammatory and just plain wrong , but even the summary .
I ca n't believe how far some people will go to twist the true nature of a thing until they can claim it stands for its exact opposite .
What 's even worse is that it gets by people whose only job is to check this stuff out before posting it to the front page of a widely read website .
If this is the answer to print journalism dying , then maybe I should start up a subscription to my local newspaper , because the alternative is apparently much worse.Also , I turned off the classic index just so that I could vote this story down as 'stupid ' and tag it as both 'badheadline ' and 'badsummary' .
I suggest others do the same .
Next to just not reading slashdot anymore , it appears it 's the only feedback we can supply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you not see that by distorting their words to advance your own agenda, and attributing to them malicious intent without any basis in fact, you undermine the very cause which you pretend to champion?
Is that what you want to do?
Do you really want to undermine the credibility of those who advocate for free and open standards, especially in the public sector?Thank you.
I would have modded you as Informative, but you're already at 5, and I wanted to respond anyway.
I'm getting really sick at how often not just the headline is inflammatory and just plain wrong, but even the summary.
I can't believe how far some people will go to twist the true nature of a thing until they can claim it stands for its exact opposite.
What's even worse is that it gets by people whose only job is to check this stuff out before posting it to the front page of a widely read website.
If this is the answer to print journalism dying, then maybe I should start up a subscription to my local newspaper, because the alternative is apparently much worse.Also, I turned off the classic index just so that I could vote this story down as 'stupid' and tag it as both 'badheadline' and 'badsummary'.
I suggest others do the same.
Next to just not reading slashdot anymore, it appears it's the only feedback we can supply.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29974150</id>
	<title>Re:Well, actually ...</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1257273840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Particularly any advantage provided by wealth or the lack thereof.</p></div><p>Why should we single out wealth as an unacceptable advantage. Is it fair for some children to be born with great musical talent or athletic ability but not for others to be born into families with significant stores of wealth, perhaps in the form of stocks or bonds that they can pass on to their children? I do not see the value in making this sort of distinction: that "natural" talents are OK, but inherited wealth is not. Actually it is interesting that you brought this up, because Milton Friedman addressed precisely this topic in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free\_to\_choose" title="wikipedia.org"> <i>Free to Choose</i> </a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3050305586516558441" title="google.com">Volume 5: Created Equal.</a> [google.com] For a followup on our education system check out <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxeP-krUrdU" title="youtube.com">Volume 6: What is Wrong with our Schools</a> [youtube.com] (sadly, not much has improved in the nearly thirty years since that video was produced).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Particularly any advantage provided by wealth or the lack thereof.Why should we single out wealth as an unacceptable advantage .
Is it fair for some children to be born with great musical talent or athletic ability but not for others to be born into families with significant stores of wealth , perhaps in the form of stocks or bonds that they can pass on to their children ?
I do not see the value in making this sort of distinction : that " natural " talents are OK , but inherited wealth is not .
Actually it is interesting that you brought this up , because Milton Friedman addressed precisely this topic in Free to Choose [ wikipedia.org ] Volume 5 : Created Equal .
[ google.com ] For a followup on our education system check out Volume 6 : What is Wrong with our Schools [ youtube.com ] ( sadly , not much has improved in the nearly thirty years since that video was produced ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Particularly any advantage provided by wealth or the lack thereof.Why should we single out wealth as an unacceptable advantage.
Is it fair for some children to be born with great musical talent or athletic ability but not for others to be born into families with significant stores of wealth, perhaps in the form of stocks or bonds that they can pass on to their children?
I do not see the value in making this sort of distinction: that "natural" talents are OK, but inherited wealth is not.
Actually it is interesting that you brought this up, because Milton Friedman addressed precisely this topic in  Free to Choose  [wikipedia.org] Volume 5: Created Equal.
[google.com] For a followup on our education system check out Volume 6: What is Wrong with our Schools [youtube.com] (sadly, not much has improved in the nearly thirty years since that video was produced).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29972926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961804</id>
	<title>Re:Cut out the "Idiocracy" tag, guys.</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1257250260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's definitely overused. Back when the tag only applied to the dumbing down of our children's education, it made some sense. but now, it's completely irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's definitely overused .
Back when the tag only applied to the dumbing down of our children 's education , it made some sense .
but now , it 's completely irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's definitely overused.
Back when the tag only applied to the dumbing down of our children's education, it made some sense.
but now, it's completely irrelevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960976</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257281580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no software patents in Europe. So all standards are free of patents.<br>Software patents are the curse of the US software industry, and the food for the trolls. Created to keep american lawyers in the job, and thus unlikely to be removed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no software patents in Europe .
So all standards are free of patents.Software patents are the curse of the US software industry , and the food for the trolls .
Created to keep american lawyers in the job , and thus unlikely to be removed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no software patents in Europe.
So all standards are free of patents.Software patents are the curse of the US software industry, and the food for the trolls.
Created to keep american lawyers in the job, and thus unlikely to be removed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961352</id>
	<title>Eurospeak</title>
	<author>flaptrap</author>
	<datestamp>1257244080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all German to me.  Or do I mean French.  Or Czech.  Or Polish...</p><p>You'd think the EU would understand that you can't translate without the dictionaries.  You can't interoperate without the specifications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all German to me .
Or do I mean French .
Or Czech .
Or Polish...You 'd think the EU would understand that you ca n't translate without the dictionaries .
You ca n't interoperate without the specifications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all German to me.
Or do I mean French.
Or Czech.
Or Polish...You'd think the EU would understand that you can't translate without the dictionaries.
You can't interoperate without the specifications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960862</id>
	<title>Reminds me of that Jon Steward quote:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257279840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bush: It's a different kind of war! They, 're a different kind of people!<br>Jon (Bush impression): They... they wear shoes on their hands! They eat with their butts! They call their Jesus Mohammad. Makes no sense...</p></div><p>I don't know how to turn that into a comment that is critical of this newspeak redefinition though...</p><p>How about you? A nice +5, Funny waits for you... coomee... catch it...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bush : It 's a different kind of war !
They , 're a different kind of people ! Jon ( Bush impression ) : They... they wear shoes on their hands !
They eat with their butts !
They call their Jesus Mohammad .
Makes no sense...I do n't know how to turn that into a comment that is critical of this newspeak redefinition though...How about you ?
A nice + 5 , Funny waits for you... coomee... catch it... ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bush: It's a different kind of war!
They, 're a different kind of people!Jon (Bush impression): They... they wear shoes on their hands!
They eat with their butts!
They call their Jesus Mohammad.
Makes no sense...I don't know how to turn that into a comment that is critical of this newspeak redefinition though...How about you?
A nice +5, Funny waits for you... coomee... catch it... ;)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961378</id>
	<title>Re:Cut out the "Idiocracy" tag, guys.</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1257244560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Who are the idiots who keep tagging everything idiocracy?"</p><p>Ironically, probably the people Slashdot's idiocracy is comprised of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Who are the idiots who keep tagging everything idiocracy ?
" Ironically , probably the people Slashdot 's idiocracy is comprised of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Who are the idiots who keep tagging everything idiocracy?
"Ironically, probably the people Slashdot's idiocracy is comprised of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29972926</id>
	<title>Re:Well, actually ...</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1257264660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"So you say, but it is not possible to give everyone the same chance at success because we are not all possessed of equal talents, drive or ability."</p><p>Giving everyone an equal chance does not require they all have equal talents, drive, or ability. It requires eliminating the advantages and disadvantages that have nothing to do with those things. Particularly any advantage provided by wealth or the lack thereof. For instance providing harvard level funding to public schools and eliminating private ones. Making admission and advancement in education be based on aptitude.</p><p>There you have leveled the playing field by making education the best that we can provide. Everyone now has access to the same education, the same names on their resume, and their only limitations as far as education are concerned are their talent, drive, and ability. If they lack talent/ability they won't have the aptitude to advance or utilize their education. If they lack drive they won't continue it or have the drive to use it to succeed.</p><p>Nobody can complain about paying for said system with taxes (at least not after a couple generations) because they will all owe the fact that they have wealth to tax on the fact they had an equal opportunity to receive education.</p><p>Oh wait, you mean one really doesn't want to see equal opportunity? One really just spouts some crap because one want to maximize ones (and your families) own wealth and use it to provide advantage to ones children?</p><p>Another big step of course is to eliminate the passing of wealth from parent to child. As long as we allow that then you can in a roundabout way take it with you. That is the secret to breaking up most of the entrenched power. By separating the success of the parent from the opportunity and success of the child you break up most of the entrenched power in short order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" So you say , but it is not possible to give everyone the same chance at success because we are not all possessed of equal talents , drive or ability .
" Giving everyone an equal chance does not require they all have equal talents , drive , or ability .
It requires eliminating the advantages and disadvantages that have nothing to do with those things .
Particularly any advantage provided by wealth or the lack thereof .
For instance providing harvard level funding to public schools and eliminating private ones .
Making admission and advancement in education be based on aptitude.There you have leveled the playing field by making education the best that we can provide .
Everyone now has access to the same education , the same names on their resume , and their only limitations as far as education are concerned are their talent , drive , and ability .
If they lack talent/ability they wo n't have the aptitude to advance or utilize their education .
If they lack drive they wo n't continue it or have the drive to use it to succeed.Nobody can complain about paying for said system with taxes ( at least not after a couple generations ) because they will all owe the fact that they have wealth to tax on the fact they had an equal opportunity to receive education.Oh wait , you mean one really does n't want to see equal opportunity ?
One really just spouts some crap because one want to maximize ones ( and your families ) own wealth and use it to provide advantage to ones children ? Another big step of course is to eliminate the passing of wealth from parent to child .
As long as we allow that then you can in a roundabout way take it with you .
That is the secret to breaking up most of the entrenched power .
By separating the success of the parent from the opportunity and success of the child you break up most of the entrenched power in short order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"So you say, but it is not possible to give everyone the same chance at success because we are not all possessed of equal talents, drive or ability.
"Giving everyone an equal chance does not require they all have equal talents, drive, or ability.
It requires eliminating the advantages and disadvantages that have nothing to do with those things.
Particularly any advantage provided by wealth or the lack thereof.
For instance providing harvard level funding to public schools and eliminating private ones.
Making admission and advancement in education be based on aptitude.There you have leveled the playing field by making education the best that we can provide.
Everyone now has access to the same education, the same names on their resume, and their only limitations as far as education are concerned are their talent, drive, and ability.
If they lack talent/ability they won't have the aptitude to advance or utilize their education.
If they lack drive they won't continue it or have the drive to use it to succeed.Nobody can complain about paying for said system with taxes (at least not after a couple generations) because they will all owe the fact that they have wealth to tax on the fact they had an equal opportunity to receive education.Oh wait, you mean one really doesn't want to see equal opportunity?
One really just spouts some crap because one want to maximize ones (and your families) own wealth and use it to provide advantage to ones children?Another big step of course is to eliminate the passing of wealth from parent to child.
As long as we allow that then you can in a roundabout way take it with you.
That is the secret to breaking up most of the entrenched power.
By separating the success of the parent from the opportunity and success of the child you break up most of the entrenched power in short order.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29965354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958594</id>
	<title>This'll do wonders in the long term</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many years down the road our children might want to know what our benevolent bureaucratic overlords were up to now, to see how things have come to be. Thankfully they'll be spared that ordeal because nobody will remember the formats and the software will have bitrotted away. It's mercy with foresight, it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many years down the road our children might want to know what our benevolent bureaucratic overlords were up to now , to see how things have come to be .
Thankfully they 'll be spared that ordeal because nobody will remember the formats and the software will have bitrotted away .
It 's mercy with foresight , it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many years down the road our children might want to know what our benevolent bureaucratic overlords were up to now, to see how things have come to be.
Thankfully they'll be spared that ordeal because nobody will remember the formats and the software will have bitrotted away.
It's mercy with foresight, it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29962998</id>
	<title>Re:They don't say what you accuse them of saying</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1257261300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't believe how far some people will go to twist the true nature of a thing until they can claim it stands for its exact opposite. What's even worse is that it gets by people whose only job is to check this stuff out before posting it to the front page of a widely read website.</p></div><p>Take a look at which "editor" posted this story. I'd be surprised if this even ends up being the worst article posted by kdawson today.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe how far some people will go to twist the true nature of a thing until they can claim it stands for its exact opposite .
What 's even worse is that it gets by people whose only job is to check this stuff out before posting it to the front page of a widely read website.Take a look at which " editor " posted this story .
I 'd be surprised if this even ends up being the worst article posted by kdawson today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe how far some people will go to twist the true nature of a thing until they can claim it stands for its exact opposite.
What's even worse is that it gets by people whose only job is to check this stuff out before posting it to the front page of a widely read website.Take a look at which "editor" posted this story.
I'd be surprised if this even ends up being the worst article posted by kdawson today.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29962284</id>
	<title>It isn't "approaching", it's here now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257256140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make the common mistake of imagining that what you can see happening hasn't actually happened yet (it has).</p><p>The robber barons are thriving. They have the intellectual property, BSD license, Mono, and OOXML promotion bots deployed to keep the ball rolling.</p><p>Greed doesn't kill them in the end. If it did they would have died out long ago. They go belly up only when someone more greedy than them comes along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make the common mistake of imagining that what you can see happening has n't actually happened yet ( it has ) .The robber barons are thriving .
They have the intellectual property , BSD license , Mono , and OOXML promotion bots deployed to keep the ball rolling.Greed does n't kill them in the end .
If it did they would have died out long ago .
They go belly up only when someone more greedy than them comes along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make the common mistake of imagining that what you can see happening hasn't actually happened yet (it has).The robber barons are thriving.
They have the intellectual property, BSD license, Mono, and OOXML promotion bots deployed to keep the ball rolling.Greed doesn't kill them in the end.
If it did they would have died out long ago.
They go belly up only when someone more greedy than them comes along.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961244</id>
	<title>Re:How hard is it?</title>
	<author>Errol backfiring</author>
	<datestamp>1257242340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>D) Freely available.</p><p>I wish I could call SQL an open standard. People should not have to invest in a standard when writing free software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>D ) Freely available.I wish I could call SQL an open standard .
People should not have to invest in a standard when writing free software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>D) Freely available.I wish I could call SQL an open standard.
People should not have to invest in a standard when writing free software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29965354</id>
	<title>Re:Well, actually ...</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1257272220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The goal isn't to make everybody equal, it's to give everybody a fair shot at success as far as this is possible.</p></div><p>So you say, but it is not possible to give everyone the same chance at success because we are not all possessed of equal talents, drive or ability. The best that can be achieved is for the government not to stand in anyone's way. Everyone has the right to an <i>opportunity</i> for success, but chance is not the same for all and using the power of government coercion in a misguided attempt to make it so will not benefit society in the long run.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And you're deluding yourself if you think Europe is any more corrupt than the US.</p></div><p>I don't think so. The Europeans are probably just more sophisticated in their corruption and better at sweeping it under the rug (they have had much more practice than their bumbling American counterparts). In Europe, where redistribution is the norm rather than the exception, even otherwise honest people are pressed to cheat in order to protect a more equitable split of their income from the taxman.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The goal is n't to make everybody equal , it 's to give everybody a fair shot at success as far as this is possible.So you say , but it is not possible to give everyone the same chance at success because we are not all possessed of equal talents , drive or ability .
The best that can be achieved is for the government not to stand in anyone 's way .
Everyone has the right to an opportunity for success , but chance is not the same for all and using the power of government coercion in a misguided attempt to make it so will not benefit society in the long run.And you 're deluding yourself if you think Europe is any more corrupt than the US.I do n't think so .
The Europeans are probably just more sophisticated in their corruption and better at sweeping it under the rug ( they have had much more practice than their bumbling American counterparts ) .
In Europe , where redistribution is the norm rather than the exception , even otherwise honest people are pressed to cheat in order to protect a more equitable split of their income from the taxman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The goal isn't to make everybody equal, it's to give everybody a fair shot at success as far as this is possible.So you say, but it is not possible to give everyone the same chance at success because we are not all possessed of equal talents, drive or ability.
The best that can be achieved is for the government not to stand in anyone's way.
Everyone has the right to an opportunity for success, but chance is not the same for all and using the power of government coercion in a misguided attempt to make it so will not benefit society in the long run.And you're deluding yourself if you think Europe is any more corrupt than the US.I don't think so.
The Europeans are probably just more sophisticated in their corruption and better at sweeping it under the rug (they have had much more practice than their bumbling American counterparts).
In Europe, where redistribution is the norm rather than the exception, even otherwise honest people are pressed to cheat in order to protect a more equitable split of their income from the taxman.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961666</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29973232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29972324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29962646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29973008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29963500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29963110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29962998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29974150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29972926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29965354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29966260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29962882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29964108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29969352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29972616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29962284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_017259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29962144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_017259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29973232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29972324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_017259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_017259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29964108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_017259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_017259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_017259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961666
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29962882
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29966260
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29965354
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29972926
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29974150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29963110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29973008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_017259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_017259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_017259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_017259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_017259.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29963500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29962998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29962646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_017259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29972616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958760
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29969352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_017259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29962144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29960680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29961420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29959284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29962284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_017259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_017259.29958392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
