<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_18_2123215</id>
	<title>Mandatory Use of Open Standards In Hungary</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1261135200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>qpeter writes <i>"Hungarian Parliament has made the <a href="http://nyissz.hu/blog/10-points-on-the-mandatory-use-of-open-standards-in-hungary/">use of open standards mandatory by law</a> in the intercommunication between public administration offices, public utility companies, citizens and voluntarily joining private companies, conducted via the central governmental system. The Open Standards Alliance initiating the amendment aims to promote the spread of monopoly-free markets that foster the development of interchangeable and interoperable products generated by open standards, and, consequently, broad competition markets, regardless of whether the IT systems of interconnecting organizations and individuals use open or closed source software. In the near future, in spite of EU tendencies the Alliance seeks to make its approach &ndash; interoperability based on publicly defined open standards &ndash; the EU norm under the Hungarian presidency of the European Union in 2011. To that end, it will promote public collaboration &ndash; possibly between every interested party, civil and political organization in the European Union. What do you think: what would be the best way to cooperate?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>qpeter writes " Hungarian Parliament has made the use of open standards mandatory by law in the intercommunication between public administration offices , public utility companies , citizens and voluntarily joining private companies , conducted via the central governmental system .
The Open Standards Alliance initiating the amendment aims to promote the spread of monopoly-free markets that foster the development of interchangeable and interoperable products generated by open standards , and , consequently , broad competition markets , regardless of whether the IT systems of interconnecting organizations and individuals use open or closed source software .
In the near future , in spite of EU tendencies the Alliance seeks to make its approach    interoperability based on publicly defined open standards    the EU norm under the Hungarian presidency of the European Union in 2011 .
To that end , it will promote public collaboration    possibly between every interested party , civil and political organization in the European Union .
What do you think : what would be the best way to cooperate ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>qpeter writes "Hungarian Parliament has made the use of open standards mandatory by law in the intercommunication between public administration offices, public utility companies, citizens and voluntarily joining private companies, conducted via the central governmental system.
The Open Standards Alliance initiating the amendment aims to promote the spread of monopoly-free markets that foster the development of interchangeable and interoperable products generated by open standards, and, consequently, broad competition markets, regardless of whether the IT systems of interconnecting organizations and individuals use open or closed source software.
In the near future, in spite of EU tendencies the Alliance seeks to make its approach – interoperability based on publicly defined open standards – the EU norm under the Hungarian presidency of the European Union in 2011.
To that end, it will promote public collaboration – possibly between every interested party, civil and political organization in the European Union.
What do you think: what would be the best way to cooperate?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495736</id>
	<title>..the language</title>
	<author>XB-70</author>
	<datestamp>1261147800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, let me get this straight - sure their standards may be open but so's the language:
<p> (From Wikipedia)
Hungarian is a Uralic language (more specifically a Ugric language) unrelated to most other languages in Europe. It is mainly spoken in Hungary and by the Hungarian minorities in the seven neighbouring countries. The Hungarian name for the language is magyar (Hungarian pronunciation: [mr]), which is also occasionally used as an English noun, such as Mighty Magyars.
</p><p>
In short, if you confuse us all enough but let us think the standards are 'open' will we buy the concept? Maybe the Hungarians might decide on Cobol as the country's default programming language and try to ram it down the EU's throat!! I think it's all a secret ploy to make Hungarian the default world language and this is their one shot at it (while being in 'charge' of the EU). This whole open standards thing is a front.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , let me get this straight - sure their standards may be open but so 's the language : ( From Wikipedia ) Hungarian is a Uralic language ( more specifically a Ugric language ) unrelated to most other languages in Europe .
It is mainly spoken in Hungary and by the Hungarian minorities in the seven neighbouring countries .
The Hungarian name for the language is magyar ( Hungarian pronunciation : [ mr ] ) , which is also occasionally used as an English noun , such as Mighty Magyars .
In short , if you confuse us all enough but let us think the standards are 'open ' will we buy the concept ?
Maybe the Hungarians might decide on Cobol as the country 's default programming language and try to ram it down the EU 's throat ! !
I think it 's all a secret ploy to make Hungarian the default world language and this is their one shot at it ( while being in 'charge ' of the EU ) .
This whole open standards thing is a front .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, let me get this straight - sure their standards may be open but so's the language:
 (From Wikipedia)
Hungarian is a Uralic language (more specifically a Ugric language) unrelated to most other languages in Europe.
It is mainly spoken in Hungary and by the Hungarian minorities in the seven neighbouring countries.
The Hungarian name for the language is magyar (Hungarian pronunciation: [mr]), which is also occasionally used as an English noun, such as Mighty Magyars.
In short, if you confuse us all enough but let us think the standards are 'open' will we buy the concept?
Maybe the Hungarians might decide on Cobol as the country's default programming language and try to ram it down the EU's throat!!
I think it's all a secret ploy to make Hungarian the default world language and this is their one shot at it (while being in 'charge' of the EU).
This whole open standards thing is a front.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495050</id>
	<title>This is anticompetitive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261141200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mandating the use of open standards is anti-competitive and is harmful to taxpayers. Such a regulation prevents software publishers such as Microsoft from competing for government contracts because their standards are not open. Restrictions such as this never enhance competition but instead eliminate it by artificially reducing the number of bidders for any contract. While I understand the desire to embrace open standards, and why it would be a consideration for any government agency seeking bids for a project, it should not in itself disqualify bidders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mandating the use of open standards is anti-competitive and is harmful to taxpayers .
Such a regulation prevents software publishers such as Microsoft from competing for government contracts because their standards are not open .
Restrictions such as this never enhance competition but instead eliminate it by artificially reducing the number of bidders for any contract .
While I understand the desire to embrace open standards , and why it would be a consideration for any government agency seeking bids for a project , it should not in itself disqualify bidders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mandating the use of open standards is anti-competitive and is harmful to taxpayers.
Such a regulation prevents software publishers such as Microsoft from competing for government contracts because their standards are not open.
Restrictions such as this never enhance competition but instead eliminate it by artificially reducing the number of bidders for any contract.
While I understand the desire to embrace open standards, and why it would be a consideration for any government agency seeking bids for a project, it should not in itself disqualify bidders.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30497798</id>
	<title>Re:The normal way?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261226820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, a fellow american!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , a fellow american !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, a fellow american!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30498196</id>
	<title>Open formats</title>
	<author>ActiveMan</author>
	<datestamp>1261234440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They don't say which open format must be used. They just say "explain me how your software represents my information".</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't say which open format must be used .
They just say " explain me how your software represents my information " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't say which open format must be used.
They just say "explain me how your software represents my information".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495498</id>
	<title>Re:Open is fundamentally more productive than clos</title>
	<author>BradleyUffner</author>
	<datestamp>1261145460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1) Open standards can be understood and used by anyone/any program that implements them, and</p><p>2) Closed standards are locked down and hidden by the vendor that created them, forcing you to use their software?</p></div></blockquote><p>Technically Closed standards can be understood and used by anyone/any program that implements them too.<br>There are plenty of libraries out that that can read and write locked down file formats, such as the Biff-8 fileformat that used to be used by Excel.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Open standards can be understood and used by anyone/any program that implements them , and2 ) Closed standards are locked down and hidden by the vendor that created them , forcing you to use their software ? Technically Closed standards can be understood and used by anyone/any program that implements them too.There are plenty of libraries out that that can read and write locked down file formats , such as the Biff-8 fileformat that used to be used by Excel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Open standards can be understood and used by anyone/any program that implements them, and2) Closed standards are locked down and hidden by the vendor that created them, forcing you to use their software?Technically Closed standards can be understood and used by anyone/any program that implements them too.There are plenty of libraries out that that can read and write locked down file formats, such as the Biff-8 fileformat that used to be used by Excel.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495212</id>
	<title>A monopoly is a monopoly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261142520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Closed source, open source, who cares?  If everyone has to use the same standard, it's still a monopoly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Closed source , open source , who cares ?
If everyone has to use the same standard , it 's still a monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Closed source, open source, who cares?
If everyone has to use the same standard, it's still a monopoly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30499288</id>
	<title>Which is It?</title>
	<author>Stormy Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1261246380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article uses two phrase "open standards" and "publically-defined open standards" as though they are interchangable, even though there is a significant difference between the two.  While making interfaces for IT publically available is a good thing, limiting everyone to a set of government defined standards is really a step backwards as it makes it impossible to innovate new interfaces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article uses two phrase " open standards " and " publically-defined open standards " as though they are interchangable , even though there is a significant difference between the two .
While making interfaces for IT publically available is a good thing , limiting everyone to a set of government defined standards is really a step backwards as it makes it impossible to innovate new interfaces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article uses two phrase "open standards" and "publically-defined open standards" as though they are interchangable, even though there is a significant difference between the two.
While making interfaces for IT publically available is a good thing, limiting everyone to a set of government defined standards is really a step backwards as it makes it impossible to innovate new interfaces.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496720</id>
	<title>If using open source, supporting open source?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261160700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how many engineers or how much money the Hungarian government will give towards open source projects... semms like mandating use of open source software would lead to a mandate to fund or support those projects with funds and personnel. JF</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how many engineers or how much money the Hungarian government will give towards open source projects... semms like mandating use of open source software would lead to a mandate to fund or support those projects with funds and personnel .
JF</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how many engineers or how much money the Hungarian government will give towards open source projects... semms like mandating use of open source software would lead to a mandate to fund or support those projects with funds and personnel.
JF</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30497690</id>
	<title>Re:This is anticompetitive</title>
	<author>AxeTheMax</author>
	<datestamp>1261223880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mandating the exclusion of bribery, intimidation and murder is anti-competitive and is harmful to taxpayers. Such a regulation prevents criminal gangs such as the Mafia from competing for government contracts because bribery, intimidation and murder are a key component of their work practices. Restrictions such as this never enhance competition but instead eliminate it by artificially reducing the number of bidders for any contract. While I understand the desire to embrace clean and lawful government, and why it would be a consideration for any government agency seeking bids for a project, it should not in itself disqualify bidders.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mandating the exclusion of bribery , intimidation and murder is anti-competitive and is harmful to taxpayers .
Such a regulation prevents criminal gangs such as the Mafia from competing for government contracts because bribery , intimidation and murder are a key component of their work practices .
Restrictions such as this never enhance competition but instead eliminate it by artificially reducing the number of bidders for any contract .
While I understand the desire to embrace clean and lawful government , and why it would be a consideration for any government agency seeking bids for a project , it should not in itself disqualify bidders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mandating the exclusion of bribery, intimidation and murder is anti-competitive and is harmful to taxpayers.
Such a regulation prevents criminal gangs such as the Mafia from competing for government contracts because bribery, intimidation and murder are a key component of their work practices.
Restrictions such as this never enhance competition but instead eliminate it by artificially reducing the number of bidders for any contract.
While I understand the desire to embrace clean and lawful government, and why it would be a consideration for any government agency seeking bids for a project, it should not in itself disqualify bidders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30499658</id>
	<title>Cryers beware!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261249320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There will no doubt be people --people who claim that competition is good-- who will cry foul.  This is bullshit!  Open standards promote competition.  The market is FORCED OPEN.  The only people who hate this are proprietary, predatory monopolies who can't compete on a level playing field.  They will cry out 'oh noes, its not fair to promote them over usssss' (phrasing sounding like Gollum intentional).  They are all for fairness in the market, but are happy and cheerful to use lock-in tactics to keep others out.  Really, it should be mandatory worldwide.  Businesses always cry 'but the market will figure it out'.  BULLSHIT!  The market left on its own will fuck up badly (Examples: 1929, 2008).  These are bad bad awful fuckups that the government had to fix (and they had to step in and fix a crapload of shit left by the market).  The market needs regulation.  Those who cry otherwise can take cues from their 1929 brethern, find a really tall building, grab hold of a handful of stock ticker tape, jump from the roof and let the tape save you.  Make sure the building is high, more than 100 floors is best.  There is no government regulation over milk in China.  Look at the glorious results there!  Not enough government regulation over captains getting drunk and piloting supertankers.  Look at the Exxon Valdez as an example!  Farmers can feed cows anything they like, no regulations.  Look at Mad Cow disease as a great sign of how we don't need government regulation.  But think of the profit!!! cry brainless fools looking for a quick buck.  Let us sue your ass off, and make you pay for damages (in full) says me, let me kick you to the curb like Bernie Madoff's wife, and not just you but the whole board too, and see if you are thinking of big profits, or your next meal, and let that be a sign of where things need to go.   Government regulations over digital content paid for by the government.  Hell yeah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There will no doubt be people --people who claim that competition is good-- who will cry foul .
This is bullshit !
Open standards promote competition .
The market is FORCED OPEN .
The only people who hate this are proprietary , predatory monopolies who ca n't compete on a level playing field .
They will cry out 'oh noes , its not fair to promote them over usssss ' ( phrasing sounding like Gollum intentional ) .
They are all for fairness in the market , but are happy and cheerful to use lock-in tactics to keep others out .
Really , it should be mandatory worldwide .
Businesses always cry 'but the market will figure it out' .
BULLSHIT ! The market left on its own will fuck up badly ( Examples : 1929 , 2008 ) .
These are bad bad awful fuckups that the government had to fix ( and they had to step in and fix a crapload of shit left by the market ) .
The market needs regulation .
Those who cry otherwise can take cues from their 1929 brethern , find a really tall building , grab hold of a handful of stock ticker tape , jump from the roof and let the tape save you .
Make sure the building is high , more than 100 floors is best .
There is no government regulation over milk in China .
Look at the glorious results there !
Not enough government regulation over captains getting drunk and piloting supertankers .
Look at the Exxon Valdez as an example !
Farmers can feed cows anything they like , no regulations .
Look at Mad Cow disease as a great sign of how we do n't need government regulation .
But think of the profit ! ! !
cry brainless fools looking for a quick buck .
Let us sue your ass off , and make you pay for damages ( in full ) says me , let me kick you to the curb like Bernie Madoff 's wife , and not just you but the whole board too , and see if you are thinking of big profits , or your next meal , and let that be a sign of where things need to go .
Government regulations over digital content paid for by the government .
Hell yeah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will no doubt be people --people who claim that competition is good-- who will cry foul.
This is bullshit!
Open standards promote competition.
The market is FORCED OPEN.
The only people who hate this are proprietary, predatory monopolies who can't compete on a level playing field.
They will cry out 'oh noes, its not fair to promote them over usssss' (phrasing sounding like Gollum intentional).
They are all for fairness in the market, but are happy and cheerful to use lock-in tactics to keep others out.
Really, it should be mandatory worldwide.
Businesses always cry 'but the market will figure it out'.
BULLSHIT!  The market left on its own will fuck up badly (Examples: 1929, 2008).
These are bad bad awful fuckups that the government had to fix (and they had to step in and fix a crapload of shit left by the market).
The market needs regulation.
Those who cry otherwise can take cues from their 1929 brethern, find a really tall building, grab hold of a handful of stock ticker tape, jump from the roof and let the tape save you.
Make sure the building is high, more than 100 floors is best.
There is no government regulation over milk in China.
Look at the glorious results there!
Not enough government regulation over captains getting drunk and piloting supertankers.
Look at the Exxon Valdez as an example!
Farmers can feed cows anything they like, no regulations.
Look at Mad Cow disease as a great sign of how we don't need government regulation.
But think of the profit!!!
cry brainless fools looking for a quick buck.
Let us sue your ass off, and make you pay for damages (in full) says me, let me kick you to the curb like Bernie Madoff's wife, and not just you but the whole board too, and see if you are thinking of big profits, or your next meal, and let that be a sign of where things need to go.
Government regulations over digital content paid for by the government.
Hell yeah.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495226</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't it obvious?</title>
	<author>lordtoran</author>
	<datestamp>1261142580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XML is abused way too often in places where it doesn't belong. Also it is not easy to read or edit with the ultimate tool - the good old text editor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XML is abused way too often in places where it does n't belong .
Also it is not easy to read or edit with the ultimate tool - the good old text editor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XML is abused way too often in places where it doesn't belong.
Also it is not easy to read or edit with the ultimate tool - the good old text editor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30498048</id>
	<title>So how's that Russian mandate coming along?</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1261232520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember, for schools?  Thought I read that it has been ignored.</p><p>Basically, we can predict this will be an "interesting" year for Microsoft Eastern European Sales.  Hungary will get a good deal on next year's contract.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember , for schools ?
Thought I read that it has been ignored.Basically , we can predict this will be an " interesting " year for Microsoft Eastern European Sales .
Hungary will get a good deal on next year 's contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember, for schools?
Thought I read that it has been ignored.Basically, we can predict this will be an "interesting" year for Microsoft Eastern European Sales.
Hungary will get a good deal on next year's contract.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495754</id>
	<title>I'm sure other countries will compete</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1261147980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With Mandatory <b>Closed Standards</b> policy.
</p><p>
That is: ban on the use of open standards (due to their lack of obscurity / good security protected by the secrecy of the standard)
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With Mandatory Closed Standards policy .
That is : ban on the use of open standards ( due to their lack of obscurity / good security protected by the secrecy of the standard )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Mandatory Closed Standards policy.
That is: ban on the use of open standards (due to their lack of obscurity / good security protected by the secrecy of the standard)
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495708</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261147680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The metric system is the tool of the devil !
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that 's the way I likes it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The metric system is the tool of the devil!
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496962</id>
	<title>Re:This is anticompetitive</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1261164420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Microsoft and other vendors can cry all they like. They don't want to compete on fairness. They want their customers locked down so they don't have a choice.,</i></p><p>No, the issue is that the open format causes you to spend money that could otherwise be made on adding new features.  Compatibility with a standard is expensive and isn't as easy to sell as a new option of twisty text or new way of formatting a paragraph.  Essentially open standards are an imposed stagnation on document creation tools, would be the argument.  Of course, the counter argument is that interopability as a feature is more important than individual efficiency, but that's really a state vs individual argument and we seem to be in a state era now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft and other vendors can cry all they like .
They do n't want to compete on fairness .
They want their customers locked down so they do n't have a choice.,No , the issue is that the open format causes you to spend money that could otherwise be made on adding new features .
Compatibility with a standard is expensive and is n't as easy to sell as a new option of twisty text or new way of formatting a paragraph .
Essentially open standards are an imposed stagnation on document creation tools , would be the argument .
Of course , the counter argument is that interopability as a feature is more important than individual efficiency , but that 's really a state vs individual argument and we seem to be in a state era now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft and other vendors can cry all they like.
They don't want to compete on fairness.
They want their customers locked down so they don't have a choice.,No, the issue is that the open format causes you to spend money that could otherwise be made on adding new features.
Compatibility with a standard is expensive and isn't as easy to sell as a new option of twisty text or new way of formatting a paragraph.
Essentially open standards are an imposed stagnation on document creation tools, would be the argument.
Of course, the counter argument is that interopability as a feature is more important than individual efficiency, but that's really a state vs individual argument and we seem to be in a state era now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494822</id>
	<title>like that solves anything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261139460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>in the intercommunication between public administration offices, public utility companies, citizens and voluntarily joining private companies, conducted via the central governmental system.</p></div><p>That's the trouble with standards: There's so many to choose from! Government of any kind has always faced the same problem -- how to efficiently communication amongst its many branches and divisions. And I, for one, am quite thankful that the problem won't be solved anytime soon. Nobody truly wants all the government they pay for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in the intercommunication between public administration offices , public utility companies , citizens and voluntarily joining private companies , conducted via the central governmental system.That 's the trouble with standards : There 's so many to choose from !
Government of any kind has always faced the same problem -- how to efficiently communication amongst its many branches and divisions .
And I , for one , am quite thankful that the problem wo n't be solved anytime soon .
Nobody truly wants all the government they pay for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in the intercommunication between public administration offices, public utility companies, citizens and voluntarily joining private companies, conducted via the central governmental system.That's the trouble with standards: There's so many to choose from!
Government of any kind has always faced the same problem -- how to efficiently communication amongst its many branches and divisions.
And I, for one, am quite thankful that the problem won't be solved anytime soon.
Nobody truly wants all the government they pay for.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495468</id>
	<title>Re:This is anticompetitive - Oh God please be no</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261145100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr Ballmer,</p><p>You've got to stop commenting on Slashdot when you're drunk.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Your Attorney</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr Ballmer,You 've got to stop commenting on Slashdot when you 're drunk.Sincerely,Your Attorney</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr Ballmer,You've got to stop commenting on Slashdot when you're drunk.Sincerely,Your Attorney</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495282</id>
	<title>Re:This is anticompetitive</title>
	<author>digitalunity</author>
	<datestamp>1261143120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're wrong sir. With open standards, any company can bid on projects. If their goal though is to secure future business by locking down their customer to only use their software, that's where I have a problem.</p><p>Microsoft is perfectly free to write native import/export functionality into MS Office to enable ODF file support. If they did that though, their customers would find a seamless migration from MS Office products to competitors like Lotus Symphony, OpenOffice, etc.</p><p>Microsoft and other vendors can cry all they like. They don't want to compete on fairness. They want their customers locked down so they don't have a choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're wrong sir .
With open standards , any company can bid on projects .
If their goal though is to secure future business by locking down their customer to only use their software , that 's where I have a problem.Microsoft is perfectly free to write native import/export functionality into MS Office to enable ODF file support .
If they did that though , their customers would find a seamless migration from MS Office products to competitors like Lotus Symphony , OpenOffice , etc.Microsoft and other vendors can cry all they like .
They do n't want to compete on fairness .
They want their customers locked down so they do n't have a choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're wrong sir.
With open standards, any company can bid on projects.
If their goal though is to secure future business by locking down their customer to only use their software, that's where I have a problem.Microsoft is perfectly free to write native import/export functionality into MS Office to enable ODF file support.
If they did that though, their customers would find a seamless migration from MS Office products to competitors like Lotus Symphony, OpenOffice, etc.Microsoft and other vendors can cry all they like.
They don't want to compete on fairness.
They want their customers locked down so they don't have a choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30500958</id>
	<title>yang925@gmx.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261223400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There Seems to be a retarded debate about competition over open standerards. This doesn't make sense. Here is Why.</p><p>Open Standards dont mean open source programs only. Other wise this would be unfair and anti-competetive. It simple means and open file standard. IE. Anyone can freely make/ use a program to use these standards. IE. ODF. Microsoft can use ODF, OpenOffice can use ODF<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... etc. Meaning Everyone can use it or more competetion.</p><p>This doesn't mean open source forever but it means i can read government documents with out paying microsoft $99 for microsoft word. Witch is important. It keeps people from being locked into a specific program. It doesn't hurt competition becuase there is more to a program than what type of file it saves. Interface is also a huge deal. Thus Open Standards Premote Competition and don't Hinder it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There Seems to be a retarded debate about competition over open standerards .
This does n't make sense .
Here is Why.Open Standards dont mean open source programs only .
Other wise this would be unfair and anti-competetive .
It simple means and open file standard .
IE. Anyone can freely make/ use a program to use these standards .
IE. ODF .
Microsoft can use ODF , OpenOffice can use ODF ... etc. Meaning Everyone can use it or more competetion.This does n't mean open source forever but it means i can read government documents with out paying microsoft $ 99 for microsoft word .
Witch is important .
It keeps people from being locked into a specific program .
It does n't hurt competition becuase there is more to a program than what type of file it saves .
Interface is also a huge deal .
Thus Open Standards Premote Competition and do n't Hinder it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There Seems to be a retarded debate about competition over open standerards.
This doesn't make sense.
Here is Why.Open Standards dont mean open source programs only.
Other wise this would be unfair and anti-competetive.
It simple means and open file standard.
IE. Anyone can freely make/ use a program to use these standards.
IE. ODF.
Microsoft can use ODF, OpenOffice can use ODF ... etc. Meaning Everyone can use it or more competetion.This doesn't mean open source forever but it means i can read government documents with out paying microsoft $99 for microsoft word.
Witch is important.
It keeps people from being locked into a specific program.
It doesn't hurt competition becuase there is more to a program than what type of file it saves.
Interface is also a huge deal.
Thus Open Standards Premote Competition and don't Hinder it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495720</id>
	<title>Re:Open is fundamentally more productive than clos</title>
	<author>hackus</author>
	<datestamp>1261147740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if I wanted to start a new "country" I would:</p><p>1) Keep the standards closed and proprietary.  However, at the same time, I would promote the idea of open standards and indicate that the reason why we cannot publish the standards that run the countries government is because they are currently a work in progress, and doesn't exist.</p><p>But, we have everyones best interests in mind because we hold open conferences that discuss open standards.  (Just not government ones that run the country.)</p><p>2) We would invite the world to review our new standards.  However, the proprietary panel would be only space we would actually book.   The "others" could just go home or stand around in the cold and discuss whatever.</p><p>3) Finally, we would publish that the "others" cannot agree on a standard and we where working around the clock to come up with one.   Internally however, the proprietary bookings we made would just go ahead an inact a standard, definately not open are you kidding me?</p><p>-Hack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if I wanted to start a new " country " I would : 1 ) Keep the standards closed and proprietary .
However , at the same time , I would promote the idea of open standards and indicate that the reason why we can not publish the standards that run the countries government is because they are currently a work in progress , and does n't exist.But , we have everyones best interests in mind because we hold open conferences that discuss open standards .
( Just not government ones that run the country .
) 2 ) We would invite the world to review our new standards .
However , the proprietary panel would be only space we would actually book .
The " others " could just go home or stand around in the cold and discuss whatever.3 ) Finally , we would publish that the " others " can not agree on a standard and we where working around the clock to come up with one .
Internally however , the proprietary bookings we made would just go ahead an inact a standard , definately not open are you kidding me ? -Hack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if I wanted to start a new "country" I would:1) Keep the standards closed and proprietary.
However, at the same time, I would promote the idea of open standards and indicate that the reason why we cannot publish the standards that run the countries government is because they are currently a work in progress, and doesn't exist.But, we have everyones best interests in mind because we hold open conferences that discuss open standards.
(Just not government ones that run the country.
)2) We would invite the world to review our new standards.
However, the proprietary panel would be only space we would actually book.
The "others" could just go home or stand around in the cold and discuss whatever.3) Finally, we would publish that the "others" cannot agree on a standard and we where working around the clock to come up with one.
Internally however, the proprietary bookings we made would just go ahead an inact a standard, definately not open are you kidding me?-Hack</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494858</id>
	<title>Re:like that solves anything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261139700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But open standards means that we all know what the rules are and have to abide by them. So yes it is a better system than the current mess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But open standards means that we all know what the rules are and have to abide by them .
So yes it is a better system than the current mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But open standards means that we all know what the rules are and have to abide by them.
So yes it is a better system than the current mess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30497708</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't it obvious?</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1261224300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>XML is abused way too often in places where it doesn't belong.</p></div></blockquote><p>Indeed. People should think more about what the "M" in "XML" stands for.</p><p>A good litmus test for abuse of XML is: Take an XML file and remove all tags. If the result doesn't make sense (or worse, there is nothing left except whitespace), it's abuse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>XML is abused way too often in places where it does n't belong.Indeed .
People should think more about what the " M " in " XML " stands for.A good litmus test for abuse of XML is : Take an XML file and remove all tags .
If the result does n't make sense ( or worse , there is nothing left except whitespace ) , it 's abuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XML is abused way too often in places where it doesn't belong.Indeed.
People should think more about what the "M" in "XML" stands for.A good litmus test for abuse of XML is: Take an XML file and remove all tags.
If the result doesn't make sense (or worse, there is nothing left except whitespace), it's abuse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494894</id>
	<title>Better translation or summary?</title>
	<author>mikep554</author>
	<datestamp>1261139880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anyone find an actual translation of the amendment or a better summary? TFA sounds like it was written in a combination of management-ese and marketing-speak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone find an actual translation of the amendment or a better summary ?
TFA sounds like it was written in a combination of management-ese and marketing-speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone find an actual translation of the amendment or a better summary?
TFA sounds like it was written in a combination of management-ese and marketing-speak.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495210</id>
	<title>Re:Open is fundamentally more productive than clos</title>
	<author>cntThnkofAname</author>
	<datestamp>1261142520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm am all for open source anything, but I wouldn't think the government really cares how easy a standard is to understand or implement. It's all about money. If closed standards were some how cheaper or even profitable then I would bet Hungary would be using closed standards. Before you ask how could closed standards be profitable I'll try my best to not look stupid explaining my idea: Say you have a huge monopoly organization that creates and implements closed standards (say in the Redmond area), this organization employs thousands (tens of thousands) of people. So if a country or even major organizations that are based in that country implement the closed standards they may have to pay for something that should be free, but the organization that has to be payed also has to pay it's employees and therefore the money goes back into the economy. I'm going to assume that Hungary doesn't have one of these major monopoly organizations to self-profit on, they are just trying to save some money. That being said, I wouldn't bet on any country that has a major monopoly organization that supports closed standards to be switching solely to open standards anytime soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm am all for open source anything , but I would n't think the government really cares how easy a standard is to understand or implement .
It 's all about money .
If closed standards were some how cheaper or even profitable then I would bet Hungary would be using closed standards .
Before you ask how could closed standards be profitable I 'll try my best to not look stupid explaining my idea : Say you have a huge monopoly organization that creates and implements closed standards ( say in the Redmond area ) , this organization employs thousands ( tens of thousands ) of people .
So if a country or even major organizations that are based in that country implement the closed standards they may have to pay for something that should be free , but the organization that has to be payed also has to pay it 's employees and therefore the money goes back into the economy .
I 'm going to assume that Hungary does n't have one of these major monopoly organizations to self-profit on , they are just trying to save some money .
That being said , I would n't bet on any country that has a major monopoly organization that supports closed standards to be switching solely to open standards anytime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm am all for open source anything, but I wouldn't think the government really cares how easy a standard is to understand or implement.
It's all about money.
If closed standards were some how cheaper or even profitable then I would bet Hungary would be using closed standards.
Before you ask how could closed standards be profitable I'll try my best to not look stupid explaining my idea: Say you have a huge monopoly organization that creates and implements closed standards (say in the Redmond area), this organization employs thousands (tens of thousands) of people.
So if a country or even major organizations that are based in that country implement the closed standards they may have to pay for something that should be free, but the organization that has to be payed also has to pay it's employees and therefore the money goes back into the economy.
I'm going to assume that Hungary doesn't have one of these major monopoly organizations to self-profit on, they are just trying to save some money.
That being said, I wouldn't bet on any country that has a major monopoly organization that supports closed standards to be switching solely to open standards anytime soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30505556</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't it obvious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261338480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>XML for the win</p></div><p>    Y29udGVudCBvZiBteSBmYXZvcml0ZSBsZXNiaWFuIHBvcm4gbW92aWUK</p><p>It's XML. Obvious, eh?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>XML for the win Y29udGVudCBvZiBteSBmYXZvcml0ZSBsZXNiaWFuIHBvcm4gbW92aWUKIt 's XML .
Obvious , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XML for the win    Y29udGVudCBvZiBteSBmYXZvcml0ZSBsZXNiaWFuIHBvcm4gbW92aWUKIt's XML.
Obvious, eh?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495200</id>
	<title>Re:Open is fundamentally more productive than clos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261142400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends on how much M$ will pay me, the decision maker. Can I build a house from it?<br>Who cares if four years later it will cost my country a lot more. It won't be my party that's ruling then. And my new house will be built by then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on how much M $ will pay me , the decision maker .
Can I build a house from it ? Who cares if four years later it will cost my country a lot more .
It wo n't be my party that 's ruling then .
And my new house will be built by then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on how much M$ will pay me, the decision maker.
Can I build a house from it?Who cares if four years later it will cost my country a lot more.
It won't be my party that's ruling then.
And my new house will be built by then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30498046</id>
	<title>Re:This is anticompetitive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261232460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, I rather think restrictions like this forward the competition into the realm of competence and innovation, not in the realm of marketing and obscurity. Humans are competitive life forms, but it is important to oblige them to compete for progress not regress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I rather think restrictions like this forward the competition into the realm of competence and innovation , not in the realm of marketing and obscurity .
Humans are competitive life forms , but it is important to oblige them to compete for progress not regress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I rather think restrictions like this forward the competition into the realm of competence and innovation, not in the realm of marketing and obscurity.
Humans are competitive life forms, but it is important to oblige them to compete for progress not regress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496530</id>
	<title>Re:A monopoly is a monopoly</title>
	<author>Lorien\_the\_first\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1261157820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly.  I want my tax dollars paying for something that will survive the vendor.  Documented vendor extensions of a file format are great as long as they become an open, unencumbered standard available for the government to use to solicit new contracts.
<br> <br>
This will still allow vendors freedom to make their own private standards for private use. But as soon as they get into government contracts, out comes the documentation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I want my tax dollars paying for something that will survive the vendor .
Documented vendor extensions of a file format are great as long as they become an open , unencumbered standard available for the government to use to solicit new contracts .
This will still allow vendors freedom to make their own private standards for private use .
But as soon as they get into government contracts , out comes the documentation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I want my tax dollars paying for something that will survive the vendor.
Documented vendor extensions of a file format are great as long as they become an open, unencumbered standard available for the government to use to solicit new contracts.
This will still allow vendors freedom to make their own private standards for private use.
But as soon as they get into government contracts, out comes the documentation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495336</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1261143600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, everyone knows of the tyranny of the metric system! It's lead to nothing but problems for the oppressed masses, unable to squirm out of it's iron maw...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , everyone knows of the tyranny of the metric system !
It 's lead to nothing but problems for the oppressed masses , unable to squirm out of it 's iron maw.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, everyone knows of the tyranny of the metric system!
It's lead to nothing but problems for the oppressed masses, unable to squirm out of it's iron maw...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30499066</id>
	<title>TCP/IP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261244640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am from Hungary.</p><p>We interpret this law as "build all communication over the TCP/IP and you are open enough".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am from Hungary.We interpret this law as " build all communication over the TCP/IP and you are open enough " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am from Hungary.We interpret this law as "build all communication over the TCP/IP and you are open enough".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30498732</id>
	<title>Re:Open is fundamentally more productive than clos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261241220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any bets they will use "Office Open(sic)" format then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any bets they will use " Office Open ( sic ) " format then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any bets they will use "Office Open(sic)" format then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495466</id>
	<title>Re:Open is fundamentally more productive than clos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261145040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Closed, duh. Most "open" things suck donkey cock.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Closed , duh .
Most " open " things suck donkey cock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Closed, duh.
Most "open" things suck donkey cock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30497850</id>
	<title>Open Source is communism!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261227960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There I said it! Now mod me down freetards!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There I said it !
Now mod me down freetards !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There I said it!
Now mod me down freetards!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495556</id>
	<title>Re:A monopoly is a monopoly</title>
	<author>qpeter</author>
	<datestamp>1261146120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A monopoly is a unfair advantage in the marketplace. A standard is an agreed-upon way to do a given thing. If all the players agree on how things will be done -- assuming they can act on those standards -- that *reduces* the likelihood of monopolies occurring, because the playing field is leveled.</p></div><p>Our problem is that all we had was a set of mandatory standards set by exclusively the government (not by a public process), and later we succeeded guarantee by law that these standards will and remain to be open: you can use them free from any restrictions and royalty.
"our organisation managed to put through an ammendment to the electronic public
services law. The strategy was to avoid obvious confrontation, instead of open
standards the phrase "public benefit" was used.  unfortunately some important
aspects (like democratic creation and maintainance) were lost in translation.

Anyhow this is a win, that all electronic interfaces to the public utilities
will be freely and gratis accessible even by libre 3rd party tools. huzzah!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)"

It is still a managed by the government but not closed.
I don't know what kind of animal is it: what do you think?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A monopoly is a unfair advantage in the marketplace .
A standard is an agreed-upon way to do a given thing .
If all the players agree on how things will be done -- assuming they can act on those standards -- that * reduces * the likelihood of monopolies occurring , because the playing field is leveled.Our problem is that all we had was a set of mandatory standards set by exclusively the government ( not by a public process ) , and later we succeeded guarantee by law that these standards will and remain to be open : you can use them free from any restrictions and royalty .
" our organisation managed to put through an ammendment to the electronic public services law .
The strategy was to avoid obvious confrontation , instead of open standards the phrase " public benefit " was used .
unfortunately some important aspects ( like democratic creation and maintainance ) were lost in translation .
Anyhow this is a win , that all electronic interfaces to the public utilities will be freely and gratis accessible even by libre 3rd party tools .
huzzah ! ; ) " It is still a managed by the government but not closed .
I do n't know what kind of animal is it : what do you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A monopoly is a unfair advantage in the marketplace.
A standard is an agreed-upon way to do a given thing.
If all the players agree on how things will be done -- assuming they can act on those standards -- that *reduces* the likelihood of monopolies occurring, because the playing field is leveled.Our problem is that all we had was a set of mandatory standards set by exclusively the government (not by a public process), and later we succeeded guarantee by law that these standards will and remain to be open: you can use them free from any restrictions and royalty.
"our organisation managed to put through an ammendment to the electronic public
services law.
The strategy was to avoid obvious confrontation, instead of open
standards the phrase "public benefit" was used.
unfortunately some important
aspects (like democratic creation and maintainance) were lost in translation.
Anyhow this is a win, that all electronic interfaces to the public utilities
will be freely and gratis accessible even by libre 3rd party tools.
huzzah! ;)"

It is still a managed by the government but not closed.
I don't know what kind of animal is it: what do you think?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30498526</id>
	<title>what definition?</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1261239060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An "open standard" is publicly available and either 1) royalty-free or 2) licensed in a  "reasonable and non-discriminatory" way (RAND).</p><p>If you go royalty-free, that rules out H.264 and HE-AAC in the DVB-T digital television standard.  Somehow I don't see that happening in Hungary.</p><p>In truth, almost all telecommunication standards are royalty-free or RAND licensed.  All ITU standards must be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An " open standard " is publicly available and either 1 ) royalty-free or 2 ) licensed in a " reasonable and non-discriminatory " way ( RAND ) .If you go royalty-free , that rules out H.264 and HE-AAC in the DVB-T digital television standard .
Somehow I do n't see that happening in Hungary.In truth , almost all telecommunication standards are royalty-free or RAND licensed .
All ITU standards must be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An "open standard" is publicly available and either 1) royalty-free or 2) licensed in a  "reasonable and non-discriminatory" way (RAND).If you go royalty-free, that rules out H.264 and HE-AAC in the DVB-T digital television standard.
Somehow I don't see that happening in Hungary.In truth, almost all telecommunication standards are royalty-free or RAND licensed.
All ITU standards must be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494892</id>
	<title>Following up?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261139880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about some following up articles on what has happened before with these incidences or disasters to be more real.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about some following up articles on what has happened before with these incidences or disasters to be more real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about some following up articles on what has happened before with these incidences or disasters to be more real.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30498082</id>
	<title>Re:Open is fundamentally more productive than clos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261232940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a double bladed question and the answer is what the government should really be doing. I wish someone else, in Romania too, gets the model and tries to implement it. I also believe that governments should organize a specific yearly budget for opensource community grants and sponsor opensource national communities in a social manner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a double bladed question and the answer is what the government should really be doing .
I wish someone else , in Romania too , gets the model and tries to implement it .
I also believe that governments should organize a specific yearly budget for opensource community grants and sponsor opensource national communities in a social manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a double bladed question and the answer is what the government should really be doing.
I wish someone else, in Romania too, gets the model and tries to implement it.
I also believe that governments should organize a specific yearly budget for opensource community grants and sponsor opensource national communities in a social manner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496156</id>
	<title>Re:Open is fundamentally more productive than clos</title>
	<author>sleeper0</author>
	<datestamp>1261152180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this a trick question? Whoever offered the best kick-backs of course.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this a trick question ?
Whoever offered the best kick-backs of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this a trick question?
Whoever offered the best kick-backs of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495528</id>
	<title>Re:like that solves anything</title>
	<author>east coast</author>
	<datestamp>1261145820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uh, no. Open standards means that the format is open as to it's syntax and that it's not a for-pay (as in royalties).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , no .
Open standards means that the format is open as to it 's syntax and that it 's not a for-pay ( as in royalties ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, no.
Open standards means that the format is open as to it's syntax and that it's not a for-pay (as in royalties).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30498730</id>
	<title>Re:This is anticompetitive</title>
	<author>recrudescence</author>
	<datestamp>1261241220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Microsoft is perfectly free to write native import/export functionality into MS Office to enable ODF file support. If they did that though, their customers would find a seamless migration from MS Office products to competitors like Lotus Symphony, OpenOffice, etc.</p> </div><p>MS Word (the latest version at least) does have full ODT support. You can open an<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.odt document and edit it using MS Word and you can save as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.odt as well. I haven't had to use it yet personally, but it's there. It's not even in the 'other obscure formats' drop-down list, it's up there in the main 'save as...' window with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.docx,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pdf. <br> <br>

Having said that, it's a mixed blessing. It just means M$ products support the odf. So if I wrote a paper in my open document processor and saved it as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.odt, my M$ Windows colleague would be able to read it, after the initial shock of "you didn't send me a "document file" I recognise, what program do I open this with".
What it doesn't mean, however, it doesn't mean that it provides other open document processors the ability to support their<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.docx format. Which is still the 'default'  format for most organisations which use the de-facto industry standard, which, for better or worse, is MS Office. (As an aside, even for businesses that haven't switched to the latest version,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc support in openoffice is still not that great in my personal experience)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... Microsoft is perfectly free to write native import/export functionality into MS Office to enable ODF file support .
If they did that though , their customers would find a seamless migration from MS Office products to competitors like Lotus Symphony , OpenOffice , etc .
MS Word ( the latest version at least ) does have full ODT support .
You can open an .odt document and edit it using MS Word and you can save as .odt as well .
I have n't had to use it yet personally , but it 's there .
It 's not even in the 'other obscure formats ' drop-down list , it 's up there in the main 'save as... ' window with .docx , .doc and .pdf .
Having said that , it 's a mixed blessing .
It just means M $ products support the odf .
So if I wrote a paper in my open document processor and saved it as .odt , my M $ Windows colleague would be able to read it , after the initial shock of " you did n't send me a " document file " I recognise , what program do I open this with " .
What it does n't mean , however , it does n't mean that it provides other open document processors the ability to support their .docx format .
Which is still the 'default ' format for most organisations which use the de-facto industry standard , which , for better or worse , is MS Office .
( As an aside , even for businesses that have n't switched to the latest version , .doc support in openoffice is still not that great in my personal experience )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... Microsoft is perfectly free to write native import/export functionality into MS Office to enable ODF file support.
If they did that though, their customers would find a seamless migration from MS Office products to competitors like Lotus Symphony, OpenOffice, etc.
MS Word (the latest version at least) does have full ODT support.
You can open an .odt document and edit it using MS Word and you can save as .odt as well.
I haven't had to use it yet personally, but it's there.
It's not even in the 'other obscure formats' drop-down list, it's up there in the main 'save as...' window with .docx, .doc and .pdf.
Having said that, it's a mixed blessing.
It just means M$ products support the odf.
So if I wrote a paper in my open document processor and saved it as .odt, my M$ Windows colleague would be able to read it, after the initial shock of "you didn't send me a "document file" I recognise, what program do I open this with".
What it doesn't mean, however, it doesn't mean that it provides other open document processors the ability to support their .docx format.
Which is still the 'default'  format for most organisations which use the de-facto industry standard, which, for better or worse, is MS Office.
(As an aside, even for businesses that haven't switched to the latest version, .doc support in openoffice is still not that great in my personal experience)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495518</id>
	<title>Re:A monopoly is a monopoly</title>
	<author>man\_of\_mr\_e</author>
	<datestamp>1261145760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Standards are good for low level protocols, like TCP/IP.  But they're less good when it comes to higher level protocols (including data formats, because it prevents vendors from creating new things, lest they "extend" the standard and no longer be in the running for those juicy conctracts.</p><p>HTML is a great example... Sure, you can tack on new ways of viewing the code, or add-in mechanisms, or just making the browser work better, but at some point you hit a wall, and you really need to extend the format to do new cool things, and the HTML standards committee's are glacially slow.. We wouldn't have Canvas, for instance, if Apple had waited for a standards body to create it.</p><p>Office suites are a million functions that work on data in a common way... What if office documents had been "standardized" at Wordperfect and 123 1.0... I suppose some would argue that would have been a good thing, but most would find that incredibly constraining.</p><p>I think it's a better approach to mandate that if a vendor wants to compete for a government contract, they are required to completely document whichever document format is their standard one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Standards are good for low level protocols , like TCP/IP .
But they 're less good when it comes to higher level protocols ( including data formats , because it prevents vendors from creating new things , lest they " extend " the standard and no longer be in the running for those juicy conctracts.HTML is a great example... Sure , you can tack on new ways of viewing the code , or add-in mechanisms , or just making the browser work better , but at some point you hit a wall , and you really need to extend the format to do new cool things , and the HTML standards committee 's are glacially slow.. We would n't have Canvas , for instance , if Apple had waited for a standards body to create it.Office suites are a million functions that work on data in a common way... What if office documents had been " standardized " at Wordperfect and 123 1.0... I suppose some would argue that would have been a good thing , but most would find that incredibly constraining.I think it 's a better approach to mandate that if a vendor wants to compete for a government contract , they are required to completely document whichever document format is their standard one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Standards are good for low level protocols, like TCP/IP.
But they're less good when it comes to higher level protocols (including data formats, because it prevents vendors from creating new things, lest they "extend" the standard and no longer be in the running for those juicy conctracts.HTML is a great example... Sure, you can tack on new ways of viewing the code, or add-in mechanisms, or just making the browser work better, but at some point you hit a wall, and you really need to extend the format to do new cool things, and the HTML standards committee's are glacially slow.. We wouldn't have Canvas, for instance, if Apple had waited for a standards body to create it.Office suites are a million functions that work on data in a common way... What if office documents had been "standardized" at Wordperfect and 123 1.0... I suppose some would argue that would have been a good thing, but most would find that incredibly constraining.I think it's a better approach to mandate that if a vendor wants to compete for a government contract, they are required to completely document whichever document format is their standard one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940</id>
	<title>Open is fundamentally more productive than closed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261140300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are plenty of "open standards", and plenty of "closed standards" as well. If you were starting your own country and had to implement government data practices, which would you choose to implement, given:</p><p>1) Open standards can be understood and used by anyone/any program that implements them, and<br>2) Closed standards are locked down and hidden by the vendor that created them, forcing you to use their software?</p><p>*Jeopardy music*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are plenty of " open standards " , and plenty of " closed standards " as well .
If you were starting your own country and had to implement government data practices , which would you choose to implement , given : 1 ) Open standards can be understood and used by anyone/any program that implements them , and2 ) Closed standards are locked down and hidden by the vendor that created them , forcing you to use their software ?
* Jeopardy music *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are plenty of "open standards", and plenty of "closed standards" as well.
If you were starting your own country and had to implement government data practices, which would you choose to implement, given:1) Open standards can be understood and used by anyone/any program that implements them, and2) Closed standards are locked down and hidden by the vendor that created them, forcing you to use their software?
*Jeopardy music*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30499322</id>
	<title>Re:Open is fundamentally more productive than clos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261246680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhhhh whatever one is easier to use...</p><p>It's not rocket science, yet some people treat it as if it is around here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhhhh whatever one is easier to use...It 's not rocket science , yet some people treat it as if it is around here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhhhh whatever one is easier to use...It's not rocket science, yet some people treat it as if it is around here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495240</id>
	<title>Re:Open is fundamentally more productive than clos</title>
	<author>digitalunity</author>
	<datestamp>1261142760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, most governments choose option 2 by default.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , most governments choose option 2 by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, most governments choose option 2 by default.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495280</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't it obvious?</title>
	<author>Zarf</author>
	<datestamp>1261143120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XML stands for Xtremely Massively L-awesome!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XML stands for Xtremely Massively L-awesome !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XML stands for Xtremely Massively L-awesome!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496402</id>
	<title>Re:Open is fundamentally more productive than clos</title>
	<author>rtb61</author>
	<datestamp>1261155840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Now would that be a country with 50 states and, for 49 of them closed standards are nothing more than an expensive overhead. Which in turns means that the federal government of that country in continuing to maintain closed standards means they are creating a bias in the system by penalising 49 states to fund 1 state. The reality is as standards open up so does employment and business opportunities. Closed standards just result in monopolies and bloated profits for a handful whilst the rest of the economy suffers. </p><p> It is wildly inappropriate for one company to define and change at will the document standards for a whole country, at this stage of computer industry development it has been corruption that has allowed this craziness to last as long as it has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now would that be a country with 50 states and , for 49 of them closed standards are nothing more than an expensive overhead .
Which in turns means that the federal government of that country in continuing to maintain closed standards means they are creating a bias in the system by penalising 49 states to fund 1 state .
The reality is as standards open up so does employment and business opportunities .
Closed standards just result in monopolies and bloated profits for a handful whilst the rest of the economy suffers .
It is wildly inappropriate for one company to define and change at will the document standards for a whole country , at this stage of computer industry development it has been corruption that has allowed this craziness to last as long as it has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Now would that be a country with 50 states and, for 49 of them closed standards are nothing more than an expensive overhead.
Which in turns means that the federal government of that country in continuing to maintain closed standards means they are creating a bias in the system by penalising 49 states to fund 1 state.
The reality is as standards open up so does employment and business opportunities.
Closed standards just result in monopolies and bloated profits for a handful whilst the rest of the economy suffers.
It is wildly inappropriate for one company to define and change at will the document standards for a whole country, at this stage of computer industry development it has been corruption that has allowed this craziness to last as long as it has.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496538</id>
	<title>Does this allow for TIFF? GIF?</title>
	<author>filesiteguy</author>
	<datestamp>1261157880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Though I like the idea - after all why do I need to buy/download a crap product like MS Word to read a document - there are many "standards" which aren't open. Word<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc format is one. So is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xls and even the commonly used TIFF G-IV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged\_Image\_File\_Format) commonly used by document scanning applications and GIF - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics\_Interchange\_Format - used by photographic apps.<br><br>There's also DWF format for CAD files and MP3 for lossy sound compression.   IIRC, those are not open either, but pretty much universal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though I like the idea - after all why do I need to buy/download a crap product like MS Word to read a document - there are many " standards " which are n't open .
Word .doc format is one .
So is .xls and even the commonly used TIFF G-IV ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged \ _Image \ _File \ _Format ) commonly used by document scanning applications and GIF - http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics \ _Interchange \ _Format - used by photographic apps.There 's also DWF format for CAD files and MP3 for lossy sound compression .
IIRC , those are not open either , but pretty much universal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though I like the idea - after all why do I need to buy/download a crap product like MS Word to read a document - there are many "standards" which aren't open.
Word .doc format is one.
So is .xls and even the commonly used TIFF G-IV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged\_Image\_File\_Format) commonly used by document scanning applications and GIF - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics\_Interchange\_Format - used by photographic apps.There's also DWF format for CAD files and MP3 for lossy sound compression.
IIRC, those are not open either, but pretty much universal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495306</id>
	<title>Monopoly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261143300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Closed source, open source, who cares?  If everyone has to use the same standard, it's still a monopoly.</p></div><p>You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Closed source , open source , who cares ?
If everyone has to use the same standard , it 's still a monopoly.You keep using that word .
I do n't think it means what you think it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Closed source, open source, who cares?
If everyone has to use the same standard, it's still a monopoly.You keep using that word.
I don't think it means what you think it means.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495124</id>
	<title>Re:Open is fundamentally more productive than clos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261141740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) Open standards can be understood and used by anyone/any program that <b>chooses to</b> implement them</p></div><p>There, FTFY. Not to be an ass, but your point 1 was true of both open and closed standard. The real point is that anyone who chooses to implement open standards can. You can choose to implement a closed standard, but may either not succeed or get sued. Anyway, you get the point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Open standards can be understood and used by anyone/any program that chooses to implement themThere , FTFY .
Not to be an ass , but your point 1 was true of both open and closed standard .
The real point is that anyone who chooses to implement open standards can .
You can choose to implement a closed standard , but may either not succeed or get sued .
Anyway , you get the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Open standards can be understood and used by anyone/any program that chooses to implement themThere, FTFY.
Not to be an ass, but your point 1 was true of both open and closed standard.
The real point is that anyone who chooses to implement open standards can.
You can choose to implement a closed standard, but may either not succeed or get sued.
Anyway, you get the point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30498398</id>
	<title>What do ASCII and XML have to do with openness?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261237200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love the way half the commenters seem to be in love with 7-bit ASCII, and seem to confuse a character encoding with a general data transport format and then confuse that with the concept of open protocols.</p><p>ASCII is a character set and a corresponding encoding.  It is completely inappropriate for use in anywhere but the US, and ridiculously limited even there.  Let it just die already.</p><p>XML provides one way to encode information using a standardized format.  It competes with ASN.1, JSON, s-expressions, and dozens of others.  The primary advantage of these over ad-hoc formats is the wide availability of ready-made, well-designed and fully tested parsing/generating toolkits.  The cost of a new implementation is typically lower if a protocol uses these, but it is not at all a requirement for openness.</p><p>Open intercommunication does not mean XML.  Open intercommunication means that protocol documentation is publicly available.  You won&rsquo;t magically make a proprietary protocol open by choosing XML (or any other open format) for the transport&mdash;you open it up by fully documenting it.  Not all open protocols use XML, and not all XML-based protocols are open.</p><p>A protocol designer may choose to use XML encoded in ASCII.  Or ASN.1/DER with strings encoded in UTF-8.  Or they may make up their own fancy format and character encoding (MIME, anyone?).  As long as they provide enough documentation so that anyone can fully implement their protocol, it remains open no matter what technical choices they made.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the way half the commenters seem to be in love with 7-bit ASCII , and seem to confuse a character encoding with a general data transport format and then confuse that with the concept of open protocols.ASCII is a character set and a corresponding encoding .
It is completely inappropriate for use in anywhere but the US , and ridiculously limited even there .
Let it just die already.XML provides one way to encode information using a standardized format .
It competes with ASN.1 , JSON , s-expressions , and dozens of others .
The primary advantage of these over ad-hoc formats is the wide availability of ready-made , well-designed and fully tested parsing/generating toolkits .
The cost of a new implementation is typically lower if a protocol uses these , but it is not at all a requirement for openness.Open intercommunication does not mean XML .
Open intercommunication means that protocol documentation is publicly available .
You won    t magically make a proprietary protocol open by choosing XML ( or any other open format ) for the transport    you open it up by fully documenting it .
Not all open protocols use XML , and not all XML-based protocols are open.A protocol designer may choose to use XML encoded in ASCII .
Or ASN.1/DER with strings encoded in UTF-8 .
Or they may make up their own fancy format and character encoding ( MIME , anyone ? ) .
As long as they provide enough documentation so that anyone can fully implement their protocol , it remains open no matter what technical choices they made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the way half the commenters seem to be in love with 7-bit ASCII, and seem to confuse a character encoding with a general data transport format and then confuse that with the concept of open protocols.ASCII is a character set and a corresponding encoding.
It is completely inappropriate for use in anywhere but the US, and ridiculously limited even there.
Let it just die already.XML provides one way to encode information using a standardized format.
It competes with ASN.1, JSON, s-expressions, and dozens of others.
The primary advantage of these over ad-hoc formats is the wide availability of ready-made, well-designed and fully tested parsing/generating toolkits.
The cost of a new implementation is typically lower if a protocol uses these, but it is not at all a requirement for openness.Open intercommunication does not mean XML.
Open intercommunication means that protocol documentation is publicly available.
You won’t magically make a proprietary protocol open by choosing XML (or any other open format) for the transport—you open it up by fully documenting it.
Not all open protocols use XML, and not all XML-based protocols are open.A protocol designer may choose to use XML encoded in ASCII.
Or ASN.1/DER with strings encoded in UTF-8.
Or they may make up their own fancy format and character encoding (MIME, anyone?).
As long as they provide enough documentation so that anyone can fully implement their protocol, it remains open no matter what technical choices they made.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30497268</id>
	<title>Now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261214280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... if they could open source their language... =)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... if they could open source their language... = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if they could open source their language... =)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494936</id>
	<title>The normal way?</title>
	<author>mustafap</author>
	<datestamp>1261140180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;What do you think: what would be the best way to cooperate?"</p><p>Invade?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What do you think : what would be the best way to cooperate ?
" Invade ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;What do you think: what would be the best way to cooperate?
"Invade?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30500222</id>
	<title>oblig from the plam9 fortunes file</title>
	<author>DrSkwid</author>
	<datestamp>1261256040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We lead by following standards - Sape Mullender</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We lead by following standards - Sape Mullender</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We lead by following standards - Sape Mullender</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494994</id>
	<title>Ballmer's plane is already on the tarmac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261140720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Takeoff in 3...2...sir, please put the chair down until we've landed...1...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Takeoff in 3...2...sir , please put the chair down until we 've landed...1.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Takeoff in 3...2...sir, please put the chair down until we've landed...1...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495560</id>
	<title>Moot question</title>
	<author>TiggertheMad</author>
	<datestamp>1261146180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I am starting a country, I'd ignore the question entirely. My secret police, however, would insure that any companies that used closed source standards would be compliant to my needs on demand.
<br> <br>
I jokingly mention this, because this is a good example where you can watch some multinationals butt heads with a state. It will be interesting to see who comes out on top.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I am starting a country , I 'd ignore the question entirely .
My secret police , however , would insure that any companies that used closed source standards would be compliant to my needs on demand .
I jokingly mention this , because this is a good example where you can watch some multinationals butt heads with a state .
It will be interesting to see who comes out on top .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I am starting a country, I'd ignore the question entirely.
My secret police, however, would insure that any companies that used closed source standards would be compliant to my needs on demand.
I jokingly mention this, because this is a good example where you can watch some multinationals butt heads with a state.
It will be interesting to see who comes out on top.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494906</id>
	<title>What do -I- Think?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261139940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What do you think: what would be the best way to cooperate?"</p></div><p>Easy. <a href="http://github.com/" title="github.com">Github</a> [github.com]</p><p>NEXT</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you think : what would be the best way to cooperate ? " Easy .
Github [ github.com ] NEXT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you think: what would be the best way to cooperate?"Easy.
Github [github.com]NEXT
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495374</id>
	<title>There's open standard encryption methods</title>
	<author>synthesizerpatel</author>
	<datestamp>1261143960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like zero is a percent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like zero is a percent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like zero is a percent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494790</id>
	<title>Open Source?</title>
	<author>gardel999</author>
	<datestamp>1261139160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's about time they opened up their goulash recipes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about time they opened up their goulash recipes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about time they opened up their goulash recipes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30497450</id>
	<title>before you all cheer.</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1261218480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>MS makes lots of open standards software remmeber?</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS makes lots of open standards software remmeber ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS makes lots of open standards software remmeber?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494948</id>
	<title>Re:like that solves anything</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1261140360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, but open standards mean that just about any open program can read them. For example, it doesn't matter if I choose to use the open WAV, FLAC or OGG Vorbis file format, the default media player in Ubuntu can play it. The more closed the file is, the fewer programs will open it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but open standards mean that just about any open program can read them .
For example , it does n't matter if I choose to use the open WAV , FLAC or OGG Vorbis file format , the default media player in Ubuntu can play it .
The more closed the file is , the fewer programs will open it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but open standards mean that just about any open program can read them.
For example, it doesn't matter if I choose to use the open WAV, FLAC or OGG Vorbis file format, the default media player in Ubuntu can play it.
The more closed the file is, the fewer programs will open it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495382</id>
	<title>Re:A monopoly is a monopoly</title>
	<author>greenguy</author>
	<datestamp>1261144140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who modded this insightful? Parent has no idea what they're talking about.</p><p>A monopoly is a unfair advantage in the marketplace. A standard is an agreed-upon way to do a given thing. If all the players agree on how things will be done -- assuming they can act on those standards -- that *reduces* the likelihood of monopolies occurring, because the playing field is leveled.</p><p>That said, I'm opposed to mandatory standards. I want people to be able to choose whatever way they want to do things they might like, and I want to be there, eating popcorn, as they spiral down in flames with their proprietary formats and measurements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who modded this insightful ?
Parent has no idea what they 're talking about.A monopoly is a unfair advantage in the marketplace .
A standard is an agreed-upon way to do a given thing .
If all the players agree on how things will be done -- assuming they can act on those standards -- that * reduces * the likelihood of monopolies occurring , because the playing field is leveled.That said , I 'm opposed to mandatory standards .
I want people to be able to choose whatever way they want to do things they might like , and I want to be there , eating popcorn , as they spiral down in flames with their proprietary formats and measurements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who modded this insightful?
Parent has no idea what they're talking about.A monopoly is a unfair advantage in the marketplace.
A standard is an agreed-upon way to do a given thing.
If all the players agree on how things will be done -- assuming they can act on those standards -- that *reduces* the likelihood of monopolies occurring, because the playing field is leveled.That said, I'm opposed to mandatory standards.
I want people to be able to choose whatever way they want to do things they might like, and I want to be there, eating popcorn, as they spiral down in flames with their proprietary formats and measurements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495572</id>
	<title>Microsoft is THE open standarad!</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1261146300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are the platform that anyone can compete on openly.  Their platform is well documented and their formats are widely used.  Many vendors compete head to head running from the same operating platform creating an open market that anyone can compete in.</p><p>Does it matter that Microsoft owns that market and the apps that access the data?  Does it matter that the formats of the data are not open?</p><p>Control the apps and the format and you control the data.  If that data is public/government data, does that disturb your sleep at all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are the platform that anyone can compete on openly .
Their platform is well documented and their formats are widely used .
Many vendors compete head to head running from the same operating platform creating an open market that anyone can compete in.Does it matter that Microsoft owns that market and the apps that access the data ?
Does it matter that the formats of the data are not open ? Control the apps and the format and you control the data .
If that data is public/government data , does that disturb your sleep at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are the platform that anyone can compete on openly.
Their platform is well documented and their formats are widely used.
Many vendors compete head to head running from the same operating platform creating an open market that anyone can compete in.Does it matter that Microsoft owns that market and the apps that access the data?
Does it matter that the formats of the data are not open?Control the apps and the format and you control the data.
If that data is public/government data, does that disturb your sleep at all?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495130</id>
	<title>Re:like that solves anything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261141800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you are confusing two different issues - standard vs. non-standard and open vs. closed. Choosing open over closed definitely does solve something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are confusing two different issues - standard vs. non-standard and open vs. closed. Choosing open over closed definitely does solve something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are confusing two different issues - standard vs. non-standard and open vs. closed. Choosing open over closed definitely does solve something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30505648</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't it obvious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261339080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>XML for the win</p><p>
&nbsp; (and for programmers for the next 50 generations)</p></div><p>&lt;doc&gt;<br>&lt;data type="blob" encoding="base64"&gt;Y29udGVudCBvZiBteSBmYXZvcml0ZSBsZXNiaWFuIHBvcm4gbW92aWUK&lt;/data&gt;<br>&lt;/doc&gt;</p><p>It's XML. Obvious, eh?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>XML for the win   ( and for programmers for the next 50 generations ) Y29udGVudCBvZiBteSBmYXZvcml0ZSBsZXNiaWFuIHBvcm4gbW92aWUKIt 's XML .
Obvious , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XML for the win
  (and for programmers for the next 50 generations)Y29udGVudCBvZiBteSBmYXZvcml0ZSBsZXNiaWFuIHBvcm4gbW92aWUKIt's XML.
Obvious, eh?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496688</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't it obvious?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261160280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XML? More like EPIC FAIL.</p><p>I prefer the following combination:<br>Simplified EBML-like &ldquo;binary XML&rdquo;<br>+ a binary tag to XML tag mapper.</p><p>That way I have nice efficient, completely flexible, binary data, that with the use of a ridiculously simple mapper, can be transformed back and forth between XML and itself, or upon opening and saving by a text editor.</p><p>You know, just like the ASCII or Unicode mapping. But for structural information instead of for text content.<br>It can even hold binary data as content, without any escaping. Just attach a mime type info to it.</p><p>Thanks to the mapping, it can still use e.g. XPath.</p><p>If you add the mapping data as a header to the file... or a URL to the (locally cacheable) mapping file... you got pretty close to the perfect file format.</p><p>If you want, you can also add RelaxNG information to it (C syntax of course), to make it validatable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XML ?
More like EPIC FAIL.I prefer the following combination : Simplified EBML-like    binary XML    + a binary tag to XML tag mapper.That way I have nice efficient , completely flexible , binary data , that with the use of a ridiculously simple mapper , can be transformed back and forth between XML and itself , or upon opening and saving by a text editor.You know , just like the ASCII or Unicode mapping .
But for structural information instead of for text content.It can even hold binary data as content , without any escaping .
Just attach a mime type info to it.Thanks to the mapping , it can still use e.g .
XPath.If you add the mapping data as a header to the file... or a URL to the ( locally cacheable ) mapping file... you got pretty close to the perfect file format.If you want , you can also add RelaxNG information to it ( C syntax of course ) , to make it validatable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XML?
More like EPIC FAIL.I prefer the following combination:Simplified EBML-like “binary XML”+ a binary tag to XML tag mapper.That way I have nice efficient, completely flexible, binary data, that with the use of a ridiculously simple mapper, can be transformed back and forth between XML and itself, or upon opening and saving by a text editor.You know, just like the ASCII or Unicode mapping.
But for structural information instead of for text content.It can even hold binary data as content, without any escaping.
Just attach a mime type info to it.Thanks to the mapping, it can still use e.g.
XPath.If you add the mapping data as a header to the file... or a URL to the (locally cacheable) mapping file... you got pretty close to the perfect file format.If you want, you can also add RelaxNG information to it (C syntax of course), to make it validatable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495256</id>
	<title>Re:This is anticompetitive</title>
	<author>lordtoran</author>
	<datestamp>1261142940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, then those software publishers finally have to compete on quality, not lock-in, and write software that is good at impementing the standard to win the bid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , then those software publishers finally have to compete on quality , not lock-in , and write software that is good at impementing the standard to win the bid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, then those software publishers finally have to compete on quality, not lock-in, and write software that is good at impementing the standard to win the bid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494838</id>
	<title>Isn't it obvious?</title>
	<author>conteXXt</author>
	<datestamp>1261139580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XML for the win</p><p>
&nbsp; (and for programmers for the next 50 generations)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XML for the win   ( and for programmers for the next 50 generations )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XML for the win
  (and for programmers for the next 50 generations)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496236</id>
	<title>Re:..the language</title>
	<author>Charles Dodgeson</author>
	<datestamp>1261153260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think it's all a secret ploy to make Hungarian the default world language</p></div><p>Meg is van.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's all a secret ploy to make Hungarian the default world languageMeg is van .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's all a secret ploy to make Hungarian the default world languageMeg is van.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495736</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30498732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30498046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30498082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30505648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30497798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30497850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30498730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30499322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30505556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30497708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_2123215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30497690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_2123215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30497850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_2123215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494948
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_2123215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_2123215.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_2123215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_2123215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30498732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30499322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30498082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_2123215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_2123215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_2123215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30497450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_2123215.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495518
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_2123215.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_2123215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30497798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_2123215.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_2123215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30494838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30497708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30505648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30505556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_2123215.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30498046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495282
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30496962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30498730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30495468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_2123215.30497690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
