<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_25_1648218</id>
	<title>Mozilla Tries New "Lorentz" Dev Model</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1264441740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>With the recent <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/21/1918204/Mozilla-Firefox-36-Released">release of Firefox 3.6</a>, Mozilla has also decided to try out a <a href="http://www.developer.com/open/article.php/3860226/Mozilla-Firefox-Gets-More-Agile-with-Lorentz.htm">new development model</a> dubbed "Lorentz."  A blend of both Agile and more traditional "waterfall" development models, the new methodology aims to deliver new features much more quickly while still maintaining backwards compatibility, security, and overall quality.  Only time will tell if this is effective, or just another management fad.  <i>"If the new approach sounds familiar, that's because Unix and Linux development has attempted similar kinds of release variations for iterating new features while maintaining backwards compatibility. HP-UX, for example, is currently on its HP-UX 11iv3 release, which receives updates several times a year that add incremental new functionality. The Linux 2.6.x kernel gets new releases approximately every three months, which include new features as well."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the recent release of Firefox 3.6 , Mozilla has also decided to try out a new development model dubbed " Lorentz .
" A blend of both Agile and more traditional " waterfall " development models , the new methodology aims to deliver new features much more quickly while still maintaining backwards compatibility , security , and overall quality .
Only time will tell if this is effective , or just another management fad .
" If the new approach sounds familiar , that 's because Unix and Linux development has attempted similar kinds of release variations for iterating new features while maintaining backwards compatibility .
HP-UX , for example , is currently on its HP-UX 11iv3 release , which receives updates several times a year that add incremental new functionality .
The Linux 2.6.x kernel gets new releases approximately every three months , which include new features as well .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the recent release of Firefox 3.6, Mozilla has also decided to try out a new development model dubbed "Lorentz.
"  A blend of both Agile and more traditional "waterfall" development models, the new methodology aims to deliver new features much more quickly while still maintaining backwards compatibility, security, and overall quality.
Only time will tell if this is effective, or just another management fad.
"If the new approach sounds familiar, that's because Unix and Linux development has attempted similar kinds of release variations for iterating new features while maintaining backwards compatibility.
HP-UX, for example, is currently on its HP-UX 11iv3 release, which receives updates several times a year that add incremental new functionality.
The Linux 2.6.x kernel gets new releases approximately every three months, which include new features as well.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30896730</id>
	<title>Depends on the project</title>
	<author>caywen</author>
	<datestamp>1264417560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a typical yet reasonable school of thought is that the best model depends on the characteristics of the project. Some projects are very fluid and some projects are very constrained. Designing the next cool iPhone game versus programming a perfect clone of last month's cool iPhone game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a typical yet reasonable school of thought is that the best model depends on the characteristics of the project .
Some projects are very fluid and some projects are very constrained .
Designing the next cool iPhone game versus programming a perfect clone of last month 's cool iPhone game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a typical yet reasonable school of thought is that the best model depends on the characteristics of the project.
Some projects are very fluid and some projects are very constrained.
Designing the next cool iPhone game versus programming a perfect clone of last month's cool iPhone game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893152</id>
	<title>And they are moving their servers to Amman</title>
	<author>BancBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1264446240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Management has dubbed the new scheme - Lorentz of Arabia!
<br>
<br>
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week! Try the lamb!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Management has dubbed the new scheme - Lorentz of Arabia !
Thank you , thank you , I 'll be here all week !
Try the lamb !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Management has dubbed the new scheme - Lorentz of Arabia!
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week!
Try the lamb!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893018</id>
	<title>Buzz</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1264445580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>God forbids if a name should suggest something of substance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>God forbids if a name should suggest something of substance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God forbids if a name should suggest something of substance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893160</id>
	<title>Scheduling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264446240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plus, with the "Lorentz" transformation, time dilation makes it a lot easier to hit release dates. But there has been some concern over the developers' sudden weight gain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus , with the " Lorentz " transformation , time dilation makes it a lot easier to hit release dates .
But there has been some concern over the developers ' sudden weight gain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus, with the "Lorentz" transformation, time dilation makes it a lot easier to hit release dates.
But there has been some concern over the developers' sudden weight gain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30899578</id>
	<title>Uncertainty.</title>
	<author>MadMaverick9</author>
	<datestamp>1264434600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I believe we should use Heisenberg's development model.
</p><p>
Due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle the outcome of this development process is uncertain.
</p><p>
Could be a webbrowser or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... maybe an os.
</p><p>
But then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... we will never be able to determine what was actually developed, will we?
</p><p>
"Bingo. It is a pickle, no doubt about it. Bad news is there's no way you can really know if it's an os or a webbrowser. So it's really up to you. Just have to make up your own damn mind."
</p><p>
Maybe the Lorentz development model is better actually: It (Lorentz transformation) reflects the surprising fact that observers moving at different velocities report different orderings of events.
</p><p>
Mozilla reports "Bug fixed". User reports "Bug not yet fixed".
</p><p>
yuk - even with the Lorentz development model, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle still applies. We still can't tell for certain if a bug was fixed or not.
</p><p>
I give up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe we should use Heisenberg 's development model .
Due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle the outcome of this development process is uncertain .
Could be a webbrowser or ... maybe an os .
But then ... we will never be able to determine what was actually developed , will we ?
" Bingo. It is a pickle , no doubt about it .
Bad news is there 's no way you can really know if it 's an os or a webbrowser .
So it 's really up to you .
Just have to make up your own damn mind .
" Maybe the Lorentz development model is better actually : It ( Lorentz transformation ) reflects the surprising fact that observers moving at different velocities report different orderings of events .
Mozilla reports " Bug fixed " .
User reports " Bug not yet fixed " .
yuk - even with the Lorentz development model , the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle still applies .
We still ca n't tell for certain if a bug was fixed or not .
I give up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I believe we should use Heisenberg's development model.
Due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle the outcome of this development process is uncertain.
Could be a webbrowser or ... maybe an os.
But then ... we will never be able to determine what was actually developed, will we?
"Bingo. It is a pickle, no doubt about it.
Bad news is there's no way you can really know if it's an os or a webbrowser.
So it's really up to you.
Just have to make up your own damn mind.
"

Maybe the Lorentz development model is better actually: It (Lorentz transformation) reflects the surprising fact that observers moving at different velocities report different orderings of events.
Mozilla reports "Bug fixed".
User reports "Bug not yet fixed".
yuk - even with the Lorentz development model, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle still applies.
We still can't tell for certain if a bug was fixed or not.
I give up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893626</id>
	<title>E = mc^2 only for velocity ~= 0.</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1264448100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "weight gain" is due to an abuse of the equations:<blockquote><div><p>The equation Einstein came up with more than a century ago can be considered a degenerate form of the mass-energy-momentum relation for vanishing momentum. Einstein was very well aware of this, and in later papers repetitively stressed that his mass-energy equation is strictly limited to observers co-moving with the object under study. However, very, very few people seem to have paid attention to Einstein's warnings, nor to any of the more recent warnings. Even worse, the vast majority of authors of popular science books take great liberty in applying E=mc^2 to objects moving at speeds close to the speed of light, and then declare mass to increase with velocity in an attempt to recover consistency in what has become an incoherent mix of relativistic and Newtonian dynamics. Theoretical physicist Lev Okun refers to this practice as a "pedagogical virus".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..... What I consider truly amazing, is how few people are aware of the mass-energy-momentum relation.</p></div> </blockquote><p>
-- <a href="http://www.scientificblogging.com/hammock\_physicist/whats\_wrong\_emc2" title="scientificblogging.com">What's Wrong with E=mc^2</a> [scientificblogging.com], The Hammock Physicist.
</p><p>
Our blogger then proceeds to draw a right triangle with sides E*v, E*c, and m*c^3. For velocities (v) of 0, E*c=m*c^3, or E=mc^2. Yay vectors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " weight gain " is due to an abuse of the equations : The equation Einstein came up with more than a century ago can be considered a degenerate form of the mass-energy-momentum relation for vanishing momentum .
Einstein was very well aware of this , and in later papers repetitively stressed that his mass-energy equation is strictly limited to observers co-moving with the object under study .
However , very , very few people seem to have paid attention to Einstein 's warnings , nor to any of the more recent warnings .
Even worse , the vast majority of authors of popular science books take great liberty in applying E = mc ^ 2 to objects moving at speeds close to the speed of light , and then declare mass to increase with velocity in an attempt to recover consistency in what has become an incoherent mix of relativistic and Newtonian dynamics .
Theoretical physicist Lev Okun refers to this practice as a " pedagogical virus " .
..... What I consider truly amazing , is how few people are aware of the mass-energy-momentum relation .
-- What 's Wrong with E = mc ^ 2 [ scientificblogging.com ] , The Hammock Physicist .
Our blogger then proceeds to draw a right triangle with sides E * v , E * c , and m * c ^ 3 .
For velocities ( v ) of 0 , E * c = m * c ^ 3 , or E = mc ^ 2 .
Yay vectors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "weight gain" is due to an abuse of the equations:The equation Einstein came up with more than a century ago can be considered a degenerate form of the mass-energy-momentum relation for vanishing momentum.
Einstein was very well aware of this, and in later papers repetitively stressed that his mass-energy equation is strictly limited to observers co-moving with the object under study.
However, very, very few people seem to have paid attention to Einstein's warnings, nor to any of the more recent warnings.
Even worse, the vast majority of authors of popular science books take great liberty in applying E=mc^2 to objects moving at speeds close to the speed of light, and then declare mass to increase with velocity in an attempt to recover consistency in what has become an incoherent mix of relativistic and Newtonian dynamics.
Theoretical physicist Lev Okun refers to this practice as a "pedagogical virus".
..... What I consider truly amazing, is how few people are aware of the mass-energy-momentum relation.
-- What's Wrong with E=mc^2 [scientificblogging.com], The Hammock Physicist.
Our blogger then proceeds to draw a right triangle with sides E*v, E*c, and m*c^3.
For velocities (v) of 0, E*c=m*c^3, or E=mc^2.
Yay vectors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893718</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Luke has no name</author>
	<datestamp>1264448640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I concur. The "Major.Minor.Bugfix" version scheme is much more informative than Linux's arbitrary "2.6.iteration" format. The 2.6 part doesn't even matter anymore.</p><p>Major number changes with breaks in back compatibility, changes in the direction of development, major new features/architecture, etc.</p><p>Minor number changes within Major number with new features but does not affect compatibility with same Major version. Do not take away features (e.g. no regressions)</p><p>Bugfix number changes within Minor number when no new features are added, code has simply changed or bugs fixed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I concur .
The " Major.Minor.Bugfix " version scheme is much more informative than Linux 's arbitrary " 2.6.iteration " format .
The 2.6 part does n't even matter anymore.Major number changes with breaks in back compatibility , changes in the direction of development , major new features/architecture , etc.Minor number changes within Major number with new features but does not affect compatibility with same Major version .
Do not take away features ( e.g .
no regressions ) Bugfix number changes within Minor number when no new features are added , code has simply changed or bugs fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I concur.
The "Major.Minor.Bugfix" version scheme is much more informative than Linux's arbitrary "2.6.iteration" format.
The 2.6 part doesn't even matter anymore.Major number changes with breaks in back compatibility, changes in the direction of development, major new features/architecture, etc.Minor number changes within Major number with new features but does not affect compatibility with same Major version.
Do not take away features (e.g.
no regressions)Bugfix number changes within Minor number when no new features are added, code has simply changed or bugs fixed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30892986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30903862</id>
	<title>Re:Waterscrum</title>
	<author>T.E.D.</author>
	<datestamp>1264519680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait...Yahoo! had products?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait...Yahoo !
had products ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait...Yahoo!
had products?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893780</id>
	<title>Re:Oh god, the still use Waterfall?</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1264448880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I thought everybody knew that and had switched to the spiral model a loong time ago.</p></div></blockquote><p>Hence the popularity of the term, "Project Death Spiral".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought everybody knew that and had switched to the spiral model a loong time ago.Hence the popularity of the term , " Project Death Spiral " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought everybody knew that and had switched to the spiral model a loong time ago.Hence the popularity of the term, "Project Death Spiral".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893466</id>
	<title>Oh god, the still use Waterfall?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264447500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The waterfall model is <em>horrible</em> for big projects. I thought everybody knew that and had switched to the spiral model a loong time ago.<br>And now they add the only thing to it, that in even more horrible? Agile?? Or in other words: Spaghetti coding with the motto: &ldquo;If perfect planning is impossible, maybe not planning at all will work.&rdquo;<br>No, dammit! It&rsquo;s just as bad.<br>Maybe that&rsquo;s why they try to mix them both... To get to the actually healthy <em>middle ground</em>.</p><p>But still, it&rsquo;s silly. We have a perfectly good spiral model. Hell, the whole game industry uses it. (As far as I know.) And it works great, even on those huge 5-year projects. (Notable exception that proves the rule: Duke Nukem Forever.)</p><p>Sorry, but that will result in a huge epic failure, and probably Firefox&rsquo;s death.<br>Mark my words.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The waterfall model is horrible for big projects .
I thought everybody knew that and had switched to the spiral model a loong time ago.And now they add the only thing to it , that in even more horrible ?
Agile ? ? Or in other words : Spaghetti coding with the motto :    If perfect planning is impossible , maybe not planning at all will work.    No , dammit !
It    s just as bad.Maybe that    s why they try to mix them both... To get to the actually healthy middle ground.But still , it    s silly .
We have a perfectly good spiral model .
Hell , the whole game industry uses it .
( As far as I know .
) And it works great , even on those huge 5-year projects .
( Notable exception that proves the rule : Duke Nukem Forever .
) Sorry , but that will result in a huge epic failure , and probably Firefox    s death.Mark my words .
: /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The waterfall model is horrible for big projects.
I thought everybody knew that and had switched to the spiral model a loong time ago.And now they add the only thing to it, that in even more horrible?
Agile?? Or in other words: Spaghetti coding with the motto: “If perfect planning is impossible, maybe not planning at all will work.”No, dammit!
It’s just as bad.Maybe that’s why they try to mix them both... To get to the actually healthy middle ground.But still, it’s silly.
We have a perfectly good spiral model.
Hell, the whole game industry uses it.
(As far as I know.
) And it works great, even on those huge 5-year projects.
(Notable exception that proves the rule: Duke Nukem Forever.
)Sorry, but that will result in a huge epic failure, and probably Firefox’s death.Mark my words.
:/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893208</id>
	<title>Development cycles</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1264446480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the new methodology aims to deliver new features much more quickly while still maintaining backwards compatibility, security, and overall quality.</p></div><p>A style of management is only as good as its manager(s). We've had many, many methods of improving all three of those but as an industry we routinely and repeatedly turn it down for most applications over cost considerations. A new hybrid model of development won't change this -- continual pressure from inside the organization will eventually subvert any gains at the process level. Senior level management has to push this from the start -- only then would this or any other kind of methodology have a chance at achieving its goals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the new methodology aims to deliver new features much more quickly while still maintaining backwards compatibility , security , and overall quality.A style of management is only as good as its manager ( s ) .
We 've had many , many methods of improving all three of those but as an industry we routinely and repeatedly turn it down for most applications over cost considerations .
A new hybrid model of development wo n't change this -- continual pressure from inside the organization will eventually subvert any gains at the process level .
Senior level management has to push this from the start -- only then would this or any other kind of methodology have a chance at achieving its goals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the new methodology aims to deliver new features much more quickly while still maintaining backwards compatibility, security, and overall quality.A style of management is only as good as its manager(s).
We've had many, many methods of improving all three of those but as an industry we routinely and repeatedly turn it down for most applications over cost considerations.
A new hybrid model of development won't change this -- continual pressure from inside the organization will eventually subvert any gains at the process level.
Senior level management has to push this from the start -- only then would this or any other kind of methodology have a chance at achieving its goals.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893014</id>
	<title>Pointless, unles...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264445580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can I use the theory of special relativity to get out of missed deadlines?  Sure, we are way behind in this frame of reference.  But as viewed from a different frame of reference traveling near the speed of light relative to us we shipped yesterday!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I use the theory of special relativity to get out of missed deadlines ?
Sure , we are way behind in this frame of reference .
But as viewed from a different frame of reference traveling near the speed of light relative to us we shipped yesterday !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I use the theory of special relativity to get out of missed deadlines?
Sure, we are way behind in this frame of reference.
But as viewed from a different frame of reference traveling near the speed of light relative to us we shipped yesterday!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30903894</id>
	<title>Re:Like Spiral Model is Good?</title>
	<author>T.E.D.</author>
	<datestamp>1264519800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The spiral model is utterly terrible. Since the DoD moved over to it, every one of their projects is over budget, underperforming, and late.</p></div><p>Which has been a horrible downgrade from the waterfall days, when every one of their projects was over budget, underperforming, and late...but we all got "Cost+" contracts for them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The spiral model is utterly terrible .
Since the DoD moved over to it , every one of their projects is over budget , underperforming , and late.Which has been a horrible downgrade from the waterfall days , when every one of their projects was over budget , underperforming , and late...but we all got " Cost + " contracts for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The spiral model is utterly terrible.
Since the DoD moved over to it, every one of their projects is over budget, underperforming, and late.Which has been a horrible downgrade from the waterfall days, when every one of their projects was over budget, underperforming, and late...but we all got "Cost+" contracts for them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30894072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893572</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264447920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're both right.  New features getting adding to the stable kernels have done much to <em>reduce</em> stability between kernel versions.  So much so that distros have had to pick up the slack by introducing an increasing number of patches.  Have you ever looked at the patchset list for Ubuntu?   There have been like 17 different kernel patchlevels for  Karmic Koala since it was released in October.  That's more than one patchset a week, and each patchset can have anywhere from 1-10 patches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're both right .
New features getting adding to the stable kernels have done much to reduce stability between kernel versions .
So much so that distros have had to pick up the slack by introducing an increasing number of patches .
Have you ever looked at the patchset list for Ubuntu ?
There have been like 17 different kernel patchlevels for Karmic Koala since it was released in October .
That 's more than one patchset a week , and each patchset can have anywhere from 1-10 patches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're both right.
New features getting adding to the stable kernels have done much to reduce stability between kernel versions.
So much so that distros have had to pick up the slack by introducing an increasing number of patches.
Have you ever looked at the patchset list for Ubuntu?
There have been like 17 different kernel patchlevels for  Karmic Koala since it was released in October.
That's more than one patchset a week, and each patchset can have anywhere from 1-10 patches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30895316</id>
	<title>Lorentz attractors?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264412400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yah... but with Lorentz attractors I would expect it to run in circle and go nowhere...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yah... but with Lorentz attractors I would expect it to run in circle and go nowhere.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yah... but with Lorentz attractors I would expect it to run in circle and go nowhere...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30894924</id>
	<title>UCD</title>
	<author>Rui Lopes</author>
	<datestamp>1264410600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sorry, but *every* UI-centric application development model should follow any flavour of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-centered\_design" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">User Centred Design</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but * every * UI-centric application development model should follow any flavour of User Centred Design [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but *every* UI-centric application development model should follow any flavour of User Centred Design [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30894086</id>
	<title>"Waterfall" = "Toss over the fence"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264450500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many years ago, I worked at a financial software company as a product tester.  They were first class with development.  Development would release builds every two weeks while we tested them and put in fixes for the next build.  After a few months the product was released with few if any bugs.</p><p>Then the company got bought by another company and because of the similar products, a bunch of us got booted out.  Within a few weeks I started at a different company testing hospital nurse-call systems and person/asset tracking devices (IR badges that send out serial numbers to sensors so you can locate equipment or a person in a building).  Development in this place was less than stellar.  They used the "Toss it over the Fence" method of software development. The developers would do their coding and once they were happy with it would release it to Product Assurance and then move on to a different product to work on.  Any problems found in testing would not get fixed because they were no longer working on that product.  As a result, Product Managers would downgrade all found bugs as "minor" -- even critical show-stoppers.  So basically the function of testing was to rubber-stamp the software before shipping it out.</p><p>So hopefully, "Waterfall" development doesn't mean "Toss it over the Fence".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many years ago , I worked at a financial software company as a product tester .
They were first class with development .
Development would release builds every two weeks while we tested them and put in fixes for the next build .
After a few months the product was released with few if any bugs.Then the company got bought by another company and because of the similar products , a bunch of us got booted out .
Within a few weeks I started at a different company testing hospital nurse-call systems and person/asset tracking devices ( IR badges that send out serial numbers to sensors so you can locate equipment or a person in a building ) .
Development in this place was less than stellar .
They used the " Toss it over the Fence " method of software development .
The developers would do their coding and once they were happy with it would release it to Product Assurance and then move on to a different product to work on .
Any problems found in testing would not get fixed because they were no longer working on that product .
As a result , Product Managers would downgrade all found bugs as " minor " -- even critical show-stoppers .
So basically the function of testing was to rubber-stamp the software before shipping it out.So hopefully , " Waterfall " development does n't mean " Toss it over the Fence " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many years ago, I worked at a financial software company as a product tester.
They were first class with development.
Development would release builds every two weeks while we tested them and put in fixes for the next build.
After a few months the product was released with few if any bugs.Then the company got bought by another company and because of the similar products, a bunch of us got booted out.
Within a few weeks I started at a different company testing hospital nurse-call systems and person/asset tracking devices (IR badges that send out serial numbers to sensors so you can locate equipment or a person in a building).
Development in this place was less than stellar.
They used the "Toss it over the Fence" method of software development.
The developers would do their coding and once they were happy with it would release it to Product Assurance and then move on to a different product to work on.
Any problems found in testing would not get fixed because they were no longer working on that product.
As a result, Product Managers would downgrade all found bugs as "minor" -- even critical show-stoppers.
So basically the function of testing was to rubber-stamp the software before shipping it out.So hopefully, "Waterfall" development doesn't mean "Toss it over the Fence".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893134</id>
	<title>The branch is Lorentz, not the development model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264446180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of the Firefox branches are named after national parks... the name has nothing to do with the development model.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz\_National\_Park</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of the Firefox branches are named after national parks... the name has nothing to do with the development model.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz \ _National \ _Park</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of the Firefox branches are named after national parks... the name has nothing to do with the development model.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz\_National\_Park</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30892986</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264445460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Linux 2.6 model sucks.  2.6, 2.8. 2.10, etc became 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.3... on short support cycles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Linux 2.6 model sucks .
2.6 , 2.8 .
2.10 , etc became 2.6.1 , 2.6.2 , 2.6.3... on short support cycles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Linux 2.6 model sucks.
2.6, 2.8.
2.10, etc became 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.3... on short support cycles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30895230</id>
	<title>Re:Oh god, the still use Waterfall?</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1264411980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, pfft. The thing that killed Duke Nukem Forever was the decision to implement it in Perl 6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , pfft .
The thing that killed Duke Nukem Forever was the decision to implement it in Perl 6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, pfft.
The thing that killed Duke Nukem Forever was the decision to implement it in Perl 6.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30892998</id>
	<title>Chaotic releases?</title>
	<author>Vornzog</author>
	<datestamp>1264445520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this chaotic release schedule supposed to be more attractive?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this chaotic release schedule supposed to be more attractive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this chaotic release schedule supposed to be more attractive?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30894402</id>
	<title>We use the "Homer" Methodology...</title>
	<author>bodland</author>
	<datestamp>1264451820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>All deployments end with "Doh!" and are fixed and redeployed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All deployments end with " Doh !
" and are fixed and redeployed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All deployments end with "Doh!
" and are fixed and redeployed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893026</id>
	<title>Right. So they're going to fuse six sigma</title>
	<author>wiredog</author>
	<datestamp>1264445640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>with lean methods?</p><p>Where have I heard this <a href="http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2007-01-19/" title="dilbert.com">before?</a> [dilbert.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>with lean methods ? Where have I heard this before ?
[ dilbert.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with lean methods?Where have I heard this before?
[dilbert.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30895586</id>
	<title>Re:Oh god, the still use Waterfall?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264413360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>
And now they add the only thing to it, that in even more horrible? Agile?? Or in other words: Spaghetti coding with the motto: &ldquo;If perfect planning is impossible, maybe not planning at all will work.&rdquo;
</i>
<p>
This is not meant as a flame, but I don't think you have a clue as to what Agile here means. Possibly because term has been abused a lot by people who just want to get rid of all processes -- nonetheless, agile does not mean "no process". Just a light-weight common-sense process that most mature developers would follow anyway.
</p><p>
It is also true that agile methodology is a meta thing ("abstract methodology"). So it is bit silly to argue about it, as opposed to concrete implementation thereof like Scrum. But I assume you were referring to class of methodologies, all of which allegedly would be just excuses of not thinking through anything. And that is a false statement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And now they add the only thing to it , that in even more horrible ?
Agile ? ? Or in other words : Spaghetti coding with the motto :    If perfect planning is impossible , maybe not planning at all will work.    This is not meant as a flame , but I do n't think you have a clue as to what Agile here means .
Possibly because term has been abused a lot by people who just want to get rid of all processes -- nonetheless , agile does not mean " no process " .
Just a light-weight common-sense process that most mature developers would follow anyway .
It is also true that agile methodology is a meta thing ( " abstract methodology " ) .
So it is bit silly to argue about it , as opposed to concrete implementation thereof like Scrum .
But I assume you were referring to class of methodologies , all of which allegedly would be just excuses of not thinking through anything .
And that is a false statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
And now they add the only thing to it, that in even more horrible?
Agile?? Or in other words: Spaghetti coding with the motto: “If perfect planning is impossible, maybe not planning at all will work.”


This is not meant as a flame, but I don't think you have a clue as to what Agile here means.
Possibly because term has been abused a lot by people who just want to get rid of all processes -- nonetheless, agile does not mean "no process".
Just a light-weight common-sense process that most mature developers would follow anyway.
It is also true that agile methodology is a meta thing ("abstract methodology").
So it is bit silly to argue about it, as opposed to concrete implementation thereof like Scrum.
But I assume you were referring to class of methodologies, all of which allegedly would be just excuses of not thinking through anything.
And that is a false statement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30916994</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>azmodean+1</author>
	<datestamp>1264606440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the kernel is less stable between releases.  I'm failing to see why this is an issue.</p><p>If you want a stable kernel, you can use a late release candidate, a release kernel, or one of the stable kernels.  As an end user you can just punt and use a distribution's kernel, which will probably be on par with a stable kernel, but much larger since they have to support pretty much everything with a limited number of builds.
</p><p>Distributions aren't picking up anyone's slack.  What distributions do is pick a kernel version that has what they think is a good tradeoff between features and stability (with some other considerations I'm glossing over), and then proceed to tweak it for extra stability with their particular set of applications, often by cherry-picking stability fixes from continuing kernel development and backporting them to their target kernel.  Note I'm NOT saying that is all they do, they often develop their own fixes, which sometimes get pushed upstream to mainstream kernel development.  Then they continue to apply fixes to the kernel as they appear for longer than the kernel hackers are generally interested in doing.
</p><p>Each distribution strikes a balance between features, stability, schedule, and other issues, and there are entirely too many distributions for the kernel hacker community to keep track of, much less address all their issues.
</p><p>A final note, the dichotomy between distribution engineers and kernel hackers isn't all that clear a line, very often it's actually the same people doing the work on both sides of this imaginary fence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the kernel is less stable between releases .
I 'm failing to see why this is an issue.If you want a stable kernel , you can use a late release candidate , a release kernel , or one of the stable kernels .
As an end user you can just punt and use a distribution 's kernel , which will probably be on par with a stable kernel , but much larger since they have to support pretty much everything with a limited number of builds .
Distributions are n't picking up anyone 's slack .
What distributions do is pick a kernel version that has what they think is a good tradeoff between features and stability ( with some other considerations I 'm glossing over ) , and then proceed to tweak it for extra stability with their particular set of applications , often by cherry-picking stability fixes from continuing kernel development and backporting them to their target kernel .
Note I 'm NOT saying that is all they do , they often develop their own fixes , which sometimes get pushed upstream to mainstream kernel development .
Then they continue to apply fixes to the kernel as they appear for longer than the kernel hackers are generally interested in doing .
Each distribution strikes a balance between features , stability , schedule , and other issues , and there are entirely too many distributions for the kernel hacker community to keep track of , much less address all their issues .
A final note , the dichotomy between distribution engineers and kernel hackers is n't all that clear a line , very often it 's actually the same people doing the work on both sides of this imaginary fence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the kernel is less stable between releases.
I'm failing to see why this is an issue.If you want a stable kernel, you can use a late release candidate, a release kernel, or one of the stable kernels.
As an end user you can just punt and use a distribution's kernel, which will probably be on par with a stable kernel, but much larger since they have to support pretty much everything with a limited number of builds.
Distributions aren't picking up anyone's slack.
What distributions do is pick a kernel version that has what they think is a good tradeoff between features and stability (with some other considerations I'm glossing over), and then proceed to tweak it for extra stability with their particular set of applications, often by cherry-picking stability fixes from continuing kernel development and backporting them to their target kernel.
Note I'm NOT saying that is all they do, they often develop their own fixes, which sometimes get pushed upstream to mainstream kernel development.
Then they continue to apply fixes to the kernel as they appear for longer than the kernel hackers are generally interested in doing.
Each distribution strikes a balance between features, stability, schedule, and other issues, and there are entirely too many distributions for the kernel hacker community to keep track of, much less address all their issues.
A final note, the dichotomy between distribution engineers and kernel hackers isn't all that clear a line, very often it's actually the same people doing the work on both sides of this imaginary fence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893352</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1264447080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2.4/2.5 model sucks, because we have to wait years before features propagate to the stable mainline kernel. Or have to resort to backporting and vendor branches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2.4/2.5 model sucks , because we have to wait years before features propagate to the stable mainline kernel .
Or have to resort to backporting and vendor branches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.4/2.5 model sucks, because we have to wait years before features propagate to the stable mainline kernel.
Or have to resort to backporting and vendor branches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30892986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893338</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264447020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Linux 2.6 model sucks.  2.6, 2.8. 2.10, etc became 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.3... on short support cycles.</p></div><p>You, sir, do not seem to know the nightmare that maintaining separate kernels, and porting features and bugfixes back and forth, created.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Linux 2.6 model sucks .
2.6 , 2.8 .
2.10 , etc became 2.6.1 , 2.6.2 , 2.6.3... on short support cycles.You , sir , do not seem to know the nightmare that maintaining separate kernels , and porting features and bugfixes back and forth , created .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Linux 2.6 model sucks.
2.6, 2.8.
2.10, etc became 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.3... on short support cycles.You, sir, do not seem to know the nightmare that maintaining separate kernels, and porting features and bugfixes back and forth, created.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30892986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893278</id>
	<title>three digit version numbers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264446780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not simply use the classic versioning?</p><p>It's manjor.minor.patchlevel, the first number is incompatible changes, the second is features added and the third is bugfixes.</p><p>Perhaps that is just too reasonable,  and you cannot expect people to use reason on something publicall visible. (What's so bad about changing the major version shortly if something had again to be changed incompatibly? and why not keep the major version if there is only things added?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not simply use the classic versioning ? It 's manjor.minor.patchlevel , the first number is incompatible changes , the second is features added and the third is bugfixes.Perhaps that is just too reasonable , and you can not expect people to use reason on something publicall visible .
( What 's so bad about changing the major version shortly if something had again to be changed incompatibly ?
and why not keep the major version if there is only things added ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not simply use the classic versioning?It's manjor.minor.patchlevel, the first number is incompatible changes, the second is features added and the third is bugfixes.Perhaps that is just too reasonable,  and you cannot expect people to use reason on something publicall visible.
(What's so bad about changing the major version shortly if something had again to be changed incompatibly?
and why not keep the major version if there is only things added?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30894862</id>
	<title>Re:Oh god, the still use Waterfall?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264410420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First sign a developer is shitty<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>He/She starts talking about 'which development model is better' and starts naming them.</p><p>Its the developer with the issue in your case, not the model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First sign a developer is shitty ...He/She starts talking about 'which development model is better ' and starts naming them.Its the developer with the issue in your case , not the model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First sign a developer is shitty ...He/She starts talking about 'which development model is better' and starts naming them.Its the developer with the issue in your case, not the model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893762</id>
	<title>Re:Oh god, the still use Waterfall?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264448820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I thought everybody knew that and had switched to the spiral model a loong time ago.</p></div><p>"Everybody" switched to spiral? Not likely. Spiral is for big projects. Agile makes the most sense on smaller projects (and no, agile does not mean "spaghetti coding"). And still there are plenty of projects where waterfall just works. Why would those project teams change?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought everybody knew that and had switched to the spiral model a loong time ago .
" Everybody " switched to spiral ?
Not likely .
Spiral is for big projects .
Agile makes the most sense on smaller projects ( and no , agile does not mean " spaghetti coding " ) .
And still there are plenty of projects where waterfall just works .
Why would those project teams change ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought everybody knew that and had switched to the spiral model a loong time ago.
"Everybody" switched to spiral?
Not likely.
Spiral is for big projects.
Agile makes the most sense on smaller projects (and no, agile does not mean "spaghetti coding").
And still there are plenty of projects where waterfall just works.
Why would those project teams change?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893470</id>
	<title>Re:Chaotic releases?</title>
	<author>Eudial</author>
	<datestamp>1264447500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Again, I request a "+1 Badum-tish"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Again , I request a " + 1 Badum-tish "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Again, I request a "+1 Badum-tish"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30892998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30909426</id>
	<title>Re:Chaotic releases?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264498500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not if you have to do the work. Agile is for young folks who have nothing better to do with their life than "live for work."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not if you have to do the work .
Agile is for young folks who have nothing better to do with their life than " live for work .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not if you have to do the work.
Agile is for young folks who have nothing better to do with their life than "live for work.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30892998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30894960</id>
	<title>There is no real Waterfall Model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264410660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The waterfall model is horrible for big projects."</p><p>Given that the waterfall model was merely a straw-man, it's best not to use it for anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The waterfall model is horrible for big projects .
" Given that the waterfall model was merely a straw-man , it 's best not to use it for anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The waterfall model is horrible for big projects.
"Given that the waterfall model was merely a straw-man, it's best not to use it for anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30896590</id>
	<title>My favorite model</title>
	<author>caywen</author>
	<datestamp>1264417020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I much prefer the "someone just please code the damn thing" model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I much prefer the " someone just please code the damn thing " model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I much prefer the "someone just please code the damn thing" model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30894072</id>
	<title>Like Spiral Model is Good?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264450440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The waterfall model is horrible for big projects. I thought everybody knew that and had switched to the spiral model a loong time ago.</i></p><p>The spiral model is utterly terrible.  Since the DoD moved over to it, <i>every</i> one of their projects is over budget, underperforming, and late.</p><p>Agile isn't all that much better.  The whole point of Agile is that you can have all of these changes... but you can get that with shorter release cycles, and its pretty easy to game Agile as much as any other model.</p><p>I think waterfall is probably still the best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The waterfall model is horrible for big projects .
I thought everybody knew that and had switched to the spiral model a loong time ago.The spiral model is utterly terrible .
Since the DoD moved over to it , every one of their projects is over budget , underperforming , and late.Agile is n't all that much better .
The whole point of Agile is that you can have all of these changes... but you can get that with shorter release cycles , and its pretty easy to game Agile as much as any other model.I think waterfall is probably still the best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The waterfall model is horrible for big projects.
I thought everybody knew that and had switched to the spiral model a loong time ago.The spiral model is utterly terrible.
Since the DoD moved over to it, every one of their projects is over budget, underperforming, and late.Agile isn't all that much better.
The whole point of Agile is that you can have all of these changes... but you can get that with shorter release cycles, and its pretty easy to game Agile as much as any other model.I think waterfall is probably still the best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893214</id>
	<title>Waterscrum</title>
	<author>threemile</author>
	<datestamp>1264446540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>At Yahoo! we tried this on a few projects and ended up calling it waterscrum. Wanting the dev flexibility of agile and the (perceived) business certainty of waterfall at the same time isn't really possible when it's not understood that the dev methodology has impacts outside of the tech organization. If you're doing agile dev, the marketing materials, sales collateral, etc are much more difficult to write and lock down when you're looking to make a splash in the market.

For agile to work the entire company needs to be okay with some level of uncertainty, or at least understand that for major market releases you still need to plan a date far in advance. Just because you're launching code doesn't mean you're launching a product, and getting materials locked down is harder to do when, by definition, changes happen more frequently.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At Yahoo !
we tried this on a few projects and ended up calling it waterscrum .
Wanting the dev flexibility of agile and the ( perceived ) business certainty of waterfall at the same time is n't really possible when it 's not understood that the dev methodology has impacts outside of the tech organization .
If you 're doing agile dev , the marketing materials , sales collateral , etc are much more difficult to write and lock down when you 're looking to make a splash in the market .
For agile to work the entire company needs to be okay with some level of uncertainty , or at least understand that for major market releases you still need to plan a date far in advance .
Just because you 're launching code does n't mean you 're launching a product , and getting materials locked down is harder to do when , by definition , changes happen more frequently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At Yahoo!
we tried this on a few projects and ended up calling it waterscrum.
Wanting the dev flexibility of agile and the (perceived) business certainty of waterfall at the same time isn't really possible when it's not understood that the dev methodology has impacts outside of the tech organization.
If you're doing agile dev, the marketing materials, sales collateral, etc are much more difficult to write and lock down when you're looking to make a splash in the market.
For agile to work the entire company needs to be okay with some level of uncertainty, or at least understand that for major market releases you still need to plan a date far in advance.
Just because you're launching code doesn't mean you're launching a product, and getting materials locked down is harder to do when, by definition, changes happen more frequently.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30897556</id>
	<title>Re:Oh god, the still use Waterfall?</title>
	<author>Alef</author>
	<datestamp>1264421640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And now they add the only thing to it, that in even more horrible? Agile?? Or in other words: Spaghetti coding with the motto: &ldquo;If perfect planning is impossible, maybe not planning at all will work.&rdquo;</p></div></blockquote><p>It is obvious that you have never worked with a properly implemented agile process.</p><p>First of all, spaghetti code is <i>absolutely not accepted</i>. High quality code is imperative to maintain a successful product in the long run, and something methodologies such a Scrum explicitly declare as non-negotiable. In fact, one of the main points of Scrum is to try to eliminate stakeholders' influence over the quality--time trade-off.</p><p>And secondly: Of course you do planning when you work with Agile! It's just that you don't stipulate what will be achieved by a certain dead-line -- instead you <i>estimate</i>. And this is the only sensible thing to do. You cannot be more efficient than 100\%, no matter how much you need to. If things take longer, then they were harder than you thought (and hence you try to make a better estimate the next time). You can reduce the scope of the task, or you can put in more hours for a temporary boost, but the map has to change if it differs from reality.</p><p>If you with "planning" mean writing specifications, then no, you don't write as much specifications. But that doesn't mean that you do not write any specifications at all. Again, common sense dictates the rule. Specify what you need to, but don't try to specify things just for the sake of it. That is pointless at best and usually detrimental.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And now they add the only thing to it , that in even more horrible ?
Agile ? ? Or in other words : Spaghetti coding with the motto :    If perfect planning is impossible , maybe not planning at all will work.    It is obvious that you have never worked with a properly implemented agile process.First of all , spaghetti code is absolutely not accepted .
High quality code is imperative to maintain a successful product in the long run , and something methodologies such a Scrum explicitly declare as non-negotiable .
In fact , one of the main points of Scrum is to try to eliminate stakeholders ' influence over the quality--time trade-off.And secondly : Of course you do planning when you work with Agile !
It 's just that you do n't stipulate what will be achieved by a certain dead-line -- instead you estimate .
And this is the only sensible thing to do .
You can not be more efficient than 100 \ % , no matter how much you need to .
If things take longer , then they were harder than you thought ( and hence you try to make a better estimate the next time ) .
You can reduce the scope of the task , or you can put in more hours for a temporary boost , but the map has to change if it differs from reality.If you with " planning " mean writing specifications , then no , you do n't write as much specifications .
But that does n't mean that you do not write any specifications at all .
Again , common sense dictates the rule .
Specify what you need to , but do n't try to specify things just for the sake of it .
That is pointless at best and usually detrimental .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And now they add the only thing to it, that in even more horrible?
Agile?? Or in other words: Spaghetti coding with the motto: “If perfect planning is impossible, maybe not planning at all will work.”It is obvious that you have never worked with a properly implemented agile process.First of all, spaghetti code is absolutely not accepted.
High quality code is imperative to maintain a successful product in the long run, and something methodologies such a Scrum explicitly declare as non-negotiable.
In fact, one of the main points of Scrum is to try to eliminate stakeholders' influence over the quality--time trade-off.And secondly: Of course you do planning when you work with Agile!
It's just that you don't stipulate what will be achieved by a certain dead-line -- instead you estimate.
And this is the only sensible thing to do.
You cannot be more efficient than 100\%, no matter how much you need to.
If things take longer, then they were harder than you thought (and hence you try to make a better estimate the next time).
You can reduce the scope of the task, or you can put in more hours for a temporary boost, but the map has to change if it differs from reality.If you with "planning" mean writing specifications, then no, you don't write as much specifications.
But that doesn't mean that you do not write any specifications at all.
Again, common sense dictates the rule.
Specify what you need to, but don't try to specify things just for the sake of it.
That is pointless at best and usually detrimental.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30895158</id>
	<title>Other way around</title>
	<author>Roger W Moore</author>
	<datestamp>1264411620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you'll find that it is the otherway around: release dates will get a lot harder to hit because less time appears to pass for the fast moving developers compared to the rest of the planet. Also mass (not weight!) is an invariant quantity so there will be no change. Yes I know that a lot of people often think that the mass increases but it does not the 'gamma' factor in momentum comes from the velocity NOT from the mass which is why things like "F=gamma ma" do not work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 'll find that it is the otherway around : release dates will get a lot harder to hit because less time appears to pass for the fast moving developers compared to the rest of the planet .
Also mass ( not weight !
) is an invariant quantity so there will be no change .
Yes I know that a lot of people often think that the mass increases but it does not the 'gamma ' factor in momentum comes from the velocity NOT from the mass which is why things like " F = gamma ma " do not work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you'll find that it is the otherway around: release dates will get a lot harder to hit because less time appears to pass for the fast moving developers compared to the rest of the planet.
Also mass (not weight!
) is an invariant quantity so there will be no change.
Yes I know that a lot of people often think that the mass increases but it does not the 'gamma' factor in momentum comes from the velocity NOT from the mass which is why things like "F=gamma ma" do not work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893784</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264448940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The support cycles aren't small.  The linux kernel dev team simply focuses on getting a stable version out and then offload the kernel's mantenance to whomever wishes to use it, whether it's distro maintainers or your average kernel-compiling nerd.  And besides, who forces you to upgrade each time a point release is commited?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The support cycles are n't small .
The linux kernel dev team simply focuses on getting a stable version out and then offload the kernel 's mantenance to whomever wishes to use it , whether it 's distro maintainers or your average kernel-compiling nerd .
And besides , who forces you to upgrade each time a point release is commited ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The support cycles aren't small.
The linux kernel dev team simply focuses on getting a stable version out and then offload the kernel's mantenance to whomever wishes to use it, whether it's distro maintainers or your average kernel-compiling nerd.
And besides, who forces you to upgrade each time a point release is commited?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30892986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30894310</id>
	<title>Re:Oh god, the still use Waterfall?</title>
	<author>PmanAce</author>
	<datestamp>1264451400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Hell, the whole game industry uses it. (As far as I know.)"

Well I can confirm that my work uses agile, and we have been voted in the top 5 best studios in the world according to Game Informer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hell , the whole game industry uses it .
( As far as I know .
) " Well I can confirm that my work uses agile , and we have been voted in the top 5 best studios in the world according to Game Informer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hell, the whole game industry uses it.
(As far as I know.
)"

Well I can confirm that my work uses agile, and we have been voted in the top 5 best studios in the world according to Game Informer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893466</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1648218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30903894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30894072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1648218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1648218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30892986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1648218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1648218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30916994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30892986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1648218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30892998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1648218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1648218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30895158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1648218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30895586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1648218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30894862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1648218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30903862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1648218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30894310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1648218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30909426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30892998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1648218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30895230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1648218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30892986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1648218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30897556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1648218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30892986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1648218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30895316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_1648218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30894960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1648218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30895158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30895316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1648218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1648218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30903862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1648218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30892998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30909426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1648218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30894862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30895230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30894072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30903894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30895586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30894310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30897556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30894960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1648218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1648218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30892986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893572
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30916994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_1648218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_1648218.30893134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
