<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_25_238259</id>
	<title>Is Mozilla Ubiquity Dead?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1267096080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>darthcamaro writes <i>"Remember <a href="//tech.slashdot.org/story/08/08/27/1843222/Mozilla-Labs-Ubiquity-Helps-Automate-Web-Interactions">Mozilla Ubiquity</a>? It was an effort to bring natural language commands to the Firefox browser. Now after almost two years of development and a half million downloads, the project is no longer being actively developed. Project founder Aza Raskin is now working on other projects, including Mozilla Jetpack, so <a href="http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/6993/1/">Ubiquity is on the back burner</a>. '"There is huge demand for being able to connect the Web with language &mdash; to not have to move from one site to another to complete your daily tasks," Raskin said. "And there is huge demand for anyone to be able to write small snippets of code that lets them command the Web the way they want. Ubiquity gave everyday developers a voice with how the browser and the Web works."'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>darthcamaro writes " Remember Mozilla Ubiquity ?
It was an effort to bring natural language commands to the Firefox browser .
Now after almost two years of development and a half million downloads , the project is no longer being actively developed .
Project founder Aza Raskin is now working on other projects , including Mozilla Jetpack , so Ubiquity is on the back burner .
' " There is huge demand for being able to connect the Web with language    to not have to move from one site to another to complete your daily tasks , " Raskin said .
" And there is huge demand for anyone to be able to write small snippets of code that lets them command the Web the way they want .
Ubiquity gave everyday developers a voice with how the browser and the Web works .
" ' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>darthcamaro writes "Remember Mozilla Ubiquity?
It was an effort to bring natural language commands to the Firefox browser.
Now after almost two years of development and a half million downloads, the project is no longer being actively developed.
Project founder Aza Raskin is now working on other projects, including Mozilla Jetpack, so Ubiquity is on the back burner.
'"There is huge demand for being able to connect the Web with language — to not have to move from one site to another to complete your daily tasks," Raskin said.
"And there is huge demand for anyone to be able to write small snippets of code that lets them command the Web the way they want.
Ubiquity gave everyday developers a voice with how the browser and the Web works.
"'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279358</id>
	<title>Ubiquitous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267100040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... the project is no longer being actively developed.</p></div><p>You might even say that Ubiquity is not Ubiquitous.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... the project is no longer being actively developed.You might even say that Ubiquity is not Ubiquitous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... the project is no longer being actively developed.You might even say that Ubiquity is not Ubiquitous.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279516</id>
	<title>I could see this one coming...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267101120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not trying to be an annoying "see, I knew this" jerk, but really, this project was so far reaching and poorly defined in how much it should cover, that it was hard to even grasp what the end result should be, and thus also how to support the project. I'm not sure about others, but I have a much easier time building excitement for a project I know what the end result is supposed to be like, than something where the focus is on writing abstract documents on how the browser should more easily be able to be told what you want, and better ignore technical URL's... or something.</p><p>Well, yeah, that's an awesome idea, and so is being able to speak to an OS in a few words, and not have to go through the annoying process of clicking on five different icons and buttons to get there.</p><p>But it's also far reaching in scope, and not enough narrowed down. There were some concrete stuff done in it, but it felt like features sprawling in different directions, with no sense of direction. Being able to surf to Google Maps more easily, etc, but really with the extension wanting to do more. Hmm.. The article goes on with this</p><p><div class="quote"><p> While conceptually, Taskfox and Ubiquity might seem similar, Raskin noted that Taskfox is actually quite different than Ubiquity.</p><p>"Taskfox is integrated directly into the URL bar and has a simplified grammar," Raskin said. "It's more accurate to think of Taskfox as a separate product which is Ubiquity-inspired, which has the potential to evolve towards a richer, more Ubiquity-like interface."</p></div><p>Rephrased, I think Taskfox has the right idea here. Software sometimes need to evolve from something more simple, but with a well-defined feature set, and *then* into something more advanced. Or you'll get software with ill defined scope in terms of features in practice, with less motivated developers behind it. Like Windows Longhorn. Or Ubiquity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not trying to be an annoying " see , I knew this " jerk , but really , this project was so far reaching and poorly defined in how much it should cover , that it was hard to even grasp what the end result should be , and thus also how to support the project .
I 'm not sure about others , but I have a much easier time building excitement for a project I know what the end result is supposed to be like , than something where the focus is on writing abstract documents on how the browser should more easily be able to be told what you want , and better ignore technical URL 's... or something.Well , yeah , that 's an awesome idea , and so is being able to speak to an OS in a few words , and not have to go through the annoying process of clicking on five different icons and buttons to get there.But it 's also far reaching in scope , and not enough narrowed down .
There were some concrete stuff done in it , but it felt like features sprawling in different directions , with no sense of direction .
Being able to surf to Google Maps more easily , etc , but really with the extension wanting to do more .
Hmm.. The article goes on with this While conceptually , Taskfox and Ubiquity might seem similar , Raskin noted that Taskfox is actually quite different than Ubiquity .
" Taskfox is integrated directly into the URL bar and has a simplified grammar , " Raskin said .
" It 's more accurate to think of Taskfox as a separate product which is Ubiquity-inspired , which has the potential to evolve towards a richer , more Ubiquity-like interface .
" Rephrased , I think Taskfox has the right idea here .
Software sometimes need to evolve from something more simple , but with a well-defined feature set , and * then * into something more advanced .
Or you 'll get software with ill defined scope in terms of features in practice , with less motivated developers behind it .
Like Windows Longhorn .
Or Ubiquity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not trying to be an annoying "see, I knew this" jerk, but really, this project was so far reaching and poorly defined in how much it should cover, that it was hard to even grasp what the end result should be, and thus also how to support the project.
I'm not sure about others, but I have a much easier time building excitement for a project I know what the end result is supposed to be like, than something where the focus is on writing abstract documents on how the browser should more easily be able to be told what you want, and better ignore technical URL's... or something.Well, yeah, that's an awesome idea, and so is being able to speak to an OS in a few words, and not have to go through the annoying process of clicking on five different icons and buttons to get there.But it's also far reaching in scope, and not enough narrowed down.
There were some concrete stuff done in it, but it felt like features sprawling in different directions, with no sense of direction.
Being able to surf to Google Maps more easily, etc, but really with the extension wanting to do more.
Hmm.. The article goes on with this While conceptually, Taskfox and Ubiquity might seem similar, Raskin noted that Taskfox is actually quite different than Ubiquity.
"Taskfox is integrated directly into the URL bar and has a simplified grammar," Raskin said.
"It's more accurate to think of Taskfox as a separate product which is Ubiquity-inspired, which has the potential to evolve towards a richer, more Ubiquity-like interface.
"Rephrased, I think Taskfox has the right idea here.
Software sometimes need to evolve from something more simple, but with a well-defined feature set, and *then* into something more advanced.
Or you'll get software with ill defined scope in terms of features in practice, with less motivated developers behind it.
Like Windows Longhorn.
Or Ubiquity.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279860</id>
	<title>What's the point?</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1267103340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The unix shell is much better at interacting linguistically with a user than
a browser with a bolted on keyword system. Use the right tool for the job, like
<a href="http://surfraw.alioth.debian.org/" title="debian.org">Surfraw</a> [debian.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>The unix shell is much better at interacting linguistically with a user than a browser with a bolted on keyword system .
Use the right tool for the job , like Surfraw [ debian.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The unix shell is much better at interacting linguistically with a user than
a browser with a bolted on keyword system.
Use the right tool for the job, like
Surfraw [debian.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31281020</id>
	<title>Re:Mozilla don't focus on getting Labs ideas out</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1267113960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; given the size/age/complexity of the Firefox codebase compared to Chrome</p><p>The Firefox codebase was comparable to the Chrome one or smaller, last I checked.  Age is an interesting question and hard to measure as parts of a codebase get rewritten.  Complexity... a tossup.</p><p>Seriously, take a look at both carefully instead of just reading the hype.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; given the size/age/complexity of the Firefox codebase compared to ChromeThe Firefox codebase was comparable to the Chrome one or smaller , last I checked .
Age is an interesting question and hard to measure as parts of a codebase get rewritten .
Complexity... a tossup.Seriously , take a look at both carefully instead of just reading the hype .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; given the size/age/complexity of the Firefox codebase compared to ChromeThe Firefox codebase was comparable to the Chrome one or smaller, last I checked.
Age is an interesting question and hard to measure as parts of a codebase get rewritten.
Complexity... a tossup.Seriously, take a look at both carefully instead of just reading the hype.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279932</id>
	<title>Re:Mozilla don't focus on getting Labs ideas out</title>
	<author>Jim Hall</author>
	<datestamp>1267103820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mozilla Labs has started out on some great projects but they don't seem able to make it out into wider use. What happened to Weave, it's been kicking around for years? Ubiquity, a great start with developer/hacker interest, but the ball dropped.</p></div><p>Sometimes the idea of a "Labs" is to generate new ideas, but not all those ideas are really something that can be productized.</p><p>In the case of Ubiquity, it was a great idea at the time (2008) but not well-defined. As a result, I think it wasn't something that (as defined) could be easily integrated into Mozilla.</p><p>Google took a much simpler approach ("Let's present context-sensitive links for a user's email, for things we can recognize") and integrated it into the GMail web experience.  Interestingly, GMail's web interface does some of this for you already, for example by recognizing phrases in an email that indicate an appointment, and giving you a link in the right-hand side to add it to your calendar. It does the same with addresses.</p><p>I often use the links that GMail shows me when I buy something online, and the vendor emails me a shipping notification. GMail recognizes a UPS (or FedEx, or USPS) tracking code, and gives you a link - right there - to go check on the shipping status of your order.</p><p>So in a way, the functionality of Ubiquity <em>has</em> made it into a product, just not by Mozilla.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla Labs has started out on some great projects but they do n't seem able to make it out into wider use .
What happened to Weave , it 's been kicking around for years ?
Ubiquity , a great start with developer/hacker interest , but the ball dropped.Sometimes the idea of a " Labs " is to generate new ideas , but not all those ideas are really something that can be productized.In the case of Ubiquity , it was a great idea at the time ( 2008 ) but not well-defined .
As a result , I think it was n't something that ( as defined ) could be easily integrated into Mozilla.Google took a much simpler approach ( " Let 's present context-sensitive links for a user 's email , for things we can recognize " ) and integrated it into the GMail web experience .
Interestingly , GMail 's web interface does some of this for you already , for example by recognizing phrases in an email that indicate an appointment , and giving you a link in the right-hand side to add it to your calendar .
It does the same with addresses.I often use the links that GMail shows me when I buy something online , and the vendor emails me a shipping notification .
GMail recognizes a UPS ( or FedEx , or USPS ) tracking code , and gives you a link - right there - to go check on the shipping status of your order.So in a way , the functionality of Ubiquity has made it into a product , just not by Mozilla .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla Labs has started out on some great projects but they don't seem able to make it out into wider use.
What happened to Weave, it's been kicking around for years?
Ubiquity, a great start with developer/hacker interest, but the ball dropped.Sometimes the idea of a "Labs" is to generate new ideas, but not all those ideas are really something that can be productized.In the case of Ubiquity, it was a great idea at the time (2008) but not well-defined.
As a result, I think it wasn't something that (as defined) could be easily integrated into Mozilla.Google took a much simpler approach ("Let's present context-sensitive links for a user's email, for things we can recognize") and integrated it into the GMail web experience.
Interestingly, GMail's web interface does some of this for you already, for example by recognizing phrases in an email that indicate an appointment, and giving you a link in the right-hand side to add it to your calendar.
It does the same with addresses.I often use the links that GMail shows me when I buy something online, and the vendor emails me a shipping notification.
GMail recognizes a UPS (or FedEx, or USPS) tracking code, and gives you a link - right there - to go check on the shipping status of your order.So in a way, the functionality of Ubiquity has made it into a product, just not by Mozilla.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31283660</id>
	<title>Ubiquity</title>
	<author>lennier1</author>
	<datestamp>1267190760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't help it but that name always makes me think of the Ubuntu installer instead of a Browser module.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't help it but that name always makes me think of the Ubuntu installer instead of a Browser module .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't help it but that name always makes me think of the Ubuntu installer instead of a Browser module.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280970</id>
	<title>Natural selection</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267113420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dying out is a good thing. It's natural selection at work. This is why open source development is more agile and, in the long run, will produce better results than proprietary software development.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dying out is a good thing .
It 's natural selection at work .
This is why open source development is more agile and , in the long run , will produce better results than proprietary software development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dying out is a good thing.
It's natural selection at work.
This is why open source development is more agile and, in the long run, will produce better results than proprietary software development.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279748</id>
	<title>Anonymous Hero</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267102800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trust me, open source doesn't do well with user experience, interaction, graphic designers and researchers. You want a good product around open source, let open source community build code while hired designers/researchers do their job. All successful useful products go through iterative design process with a lot of user testing, usability testing.  Ubiquity is a bad user experience product, throw it one interaction designer, one graphic designer, two-three user experience designers and a couple of researchers you have useful product Ubiquity Pro( $5 )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trust me , open source does n't do well with user experience , interaction , graphic designers and researchers .
You want a good product around open source , let open source community build code while hired designers/researchers do their job .
All successful useful products go through iterative design process with a lot of user testing , usability testing .
Ubiquity is a bad user experience product , throw it one interaction designer , one graphic designer , two-three user experience designers and a couple of researchers you have useful product Ubiquity Pro ( $ 5 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trust me, open source doesn't do well with user experience, interaction, graphic designers and researchers.
You want a good product around open source, let open source community build code while hired designers/researchers do their job.
All successful useful products go through iterative design process with a lot of user testing, usability testing.
Ubiquity is a bad user experience product, throw it one interaction designer, one graphic designer, two-three user experience designers and a couple of researchers you have useful product Ubiquity Pro( $5 )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31289920</id>
	<title>Re:Ubiquitous</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1267175580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>90\% of the usage of ubiquity can be solved by copy/paste and bookmark keywords (e.g. "maps" -&gt; <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=\%25s" title="google.com">http://maps.google.com/maps?q=\%25s</a> [google.com]).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>90 \ % of the usage of ubiquity can be solved by copy/paste and bookmark keywords ( e.g .
" maps " - &gt; http : //maps.google.com/maps ? q = \ % 25s [ google.com ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>90\% of the usage of ubiquity can be solved by copy/paste and bookmark keywords (e.g.
"maps" -&gt; http://maps.google.com/maps?q=\%25s [google.com]).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31283390</id>
	<title>HNGH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267187040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sigh, first Enso and now Ubiquity?<br>God damn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sigh , first Enso and now Ubiquity ? God damn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sigh, first Enso and now Ubiquity?God damn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280622</id>
	<title>Re:Follow best practices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267109700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems a bit counterintuitive, doesn't it? If I'm putting code with my name on it out there for everybody to see, I'm probably going to do my best to make it all purdy-like. OTOH, I've seen more than one corporate environment where upper management cares about nothing beyond "can we ship it?".</p><p>Your closed code may indeed be meticulously designed and documented, but unless we can see it we'll just have to take your word for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems a bit counterintuitive , does n't it ?
If I 'm putting code with my name on it out there for everybody to see , I 'm probably going to do my best to make it all purdy-like .
OTOH , I 've seen more than one corporate environment where upper management cares about nothing beyond " can we ship it ?
" .Your closed code may indeed be meticulously designed and documented , but unless we can see it we 'll just have to take your word for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems a bit counterintuitive, doesn't it?
If I'm putting code with my name on it out there for everybody to see, I'm probably going to do my best to make it all purdy-like.
OTOH, I've seen more than one corporate environment where upper management cares about nothing beyond "can we ship it?
".Your closed code may indeed be meticulously designed and documented, but unless we can see it we'll just have to take your word for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280198</id>
	<title>Re:Open Source Projects</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1267105920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It happens to a lot of OSS projects.</p></div></blockquote><p>It happens a lot to closed source projects, too, though since it is more likely (in either project) to happen when a project is in a state before it is consider "ready for prime time", its a lot less visible in closed source projects, since they aren't as likely to be widely available at that stage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It happens to a lot of OSS projects.It happens a lot to closed source projects , too , though since it is more likely ( in either project ) to happen when a project is in a state before it is consider " ready for prime time " , its a lot less visible in closed source projects , since they are n't as likely to be widely available at that stage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It happens to a lot of OSS projects.It happens a lot to closed source projects, too, though since it is more likely (in either project) to happen when a project is in a state before it is consider "ready for prime time", its a lot less visible in closed source projects, since they aren't as likely to be widely available at that stage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279556</id>
	<title>Mozilla don't focus on getting Labs ideas out</title>
	<author>PybusJ</author>
	<datestamp>1267101480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mozilla Labs has started out on some great projects but they don't seem able to make it out into wider use.  What happened to Weave, it's been kicking around for years?  Ubiquity, a great start with developer/hacker interest, but the ball dropped.</p><p>I'm worried for how able Mozilla is to compete against the threat coming from Google and Chrome at the moment.  Their core browser is falling behind on speed and stability and I think they'll find it hard to catch up given the size/age/complexity of the Firefox codebase  compared to Chrome.  Google had the opportunity to start from scratch with the knowledge of all the browser vulnerabilities in the last decade and have a much better architecture for security and stability.  It's almost unfeasible for Mozilla to refactor firefox to match.</p><p>What they do have going for them is the collection of extensions and the new ideas from Mozilla Labs; if they don't get them out to the wider audience then their competitors will copy and popularise the best of them, essentially benefiting from free R&amp;D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla Labs has started out on some great projects but they do n't seem able to make it out into wider use .
What happened to Weave , it 's been kicking around for years ?
Ubiquity , a great start with developer/hacker interest , but the ball dropped.I 'm worried for how able Mozilla is to compete against the threat coming from Google and Chrome at the moment .
Their core browser is falling behind on speed and stability and I think they 'll find it hard to catch up given the size/age/complexity of the Firefox codebase compared to Chrome .
Google had the opportunity to start from scratch with the knowledge of all the browser vulnerabilities in the last decade and have a much better architecture for security and stability .
It 's almost unfeasible for Mozilla to refactor firefox to match.What they do have going for them is the collection of extensions and the new ideas from Mozilla Labs ; if they do n't get them out to the wider audience then their competitors will copy and popularise the best of them , essentially benefiting from free R&amp;D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla Labs has started out on some great projects but they don't seem able to make it out into wider use.
What happened to Weave, it's been kicking around for years?
Ubiquity, a great start with developer/hacker interest, but the ball dropped.I'm worried for how able Mozilla is to compete against the threat coming from Google and Chrome at the moment.
Their core browser is falling behind on speed and stability and I think they'll find it hard to catch up given the size/age/complexity of the Firefox codebase  compared to Chrome.
Google had the opportunity to start from scratch with the knowledge of all the browser vulnerabilities in the last decade and have a much better architecture for security and stability.
It's almost unfeasible for Mozilla to refactor firefox to match.What they do have going for them is the collection of extensions and the new ideas from Mozilla Labs; if they don't get them out to the wider audience then their competitors will copy and popularise the best of them, essentially benefiting from free R&amp;D.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31281910</id>
	<title>Re:Mozilla don't focus on getting Labs ideas out</title>
	<author>Killer Orca</author>
	<datestamp>1267124340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What happened to Weave, it's been kicking around for years?</p></div><p>It's actually been updated recently; it's at the 1.01 release, but they've changed a lot of the options to customize it or at least access them.  I even ditched Xmarks in favor of it because of the tab and history sync, and they're looking to add extensions in future releases..  <a href="https://mozillalabs.com/weave/" title="mozillalabs.com">https://mozillalabs.com/weave/</a> [mozillalabs.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to Weave , it 's been kicking around for years ? It 's actually been updated recently ; it 's at the 1.01 release , but they 've changed a lot of the options to customize it or at least access them .
I even ditched Xmarks in favor of it because of the tab and history sync , and they 're looking to add extensions in future releases.. https : //mozillalabs.com/weave/ [ mozillalabs.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to Weave, it's been kicking around for years?It's actually been updated recently; it's at the 1.01 release, but they've changed a lot of the options to customize it or at least access them.
I even ditched Xmarks in favor of it because of the tab and history sync, and they're looking to add extensions in future releases..  https://mozillalabs.com/weave/ [mozillalabs.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279846</id>
	<title>Pity</title>
	<author>etherlad</author>
	<datestamp>1267103280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn shame. I used it all the time to create tinyurls, to translate text on the fly, and so on. It was a handy little utility, and I was excited with the direction they wanted to go it.</p><p>It'd be nice if they could even just do a version update so I could use it with Firefox 3.6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn shame .
I used it all the time to create tinyurls , to translate text on the fly , and so on .
It was a handy little utility , and I was excited with the direction they wanted to go it.It 'd be nice if they could even just do a version update so I could use it with Firefox 3.6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn shame.
I used it all the time to create tinyurls, to translate text on the fly, and so on.
It was a handy little utility, and I was excited with the direction they wanted to go it.It'd be nice if they could even just do a version update so I could use it with Firefox 3.6.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280172</id>
	<title>Re:How does this get me more beamtime?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267105740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Natural language has always been a fad</p></div> </blockquote><p>Um, what?</p><p>Natural language has been pretty popular for longer than all of recorded history, so its clearly not a fad.</p><p>Its also been pretty constantly a goal, for quite some time, to get computers to understand something approximating it for human interactions. For pretty obvious reasons -- its certainly a manner in which humans are generally pretty comfortable interacting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Natural language has always been a fad Um , what ? Natural language has been pretty popular for longer than all of recorded history , so its clearly not a fad.Its also been pretty constantly a goal , for quite some time , to get computers to understand something approximating it for human interactions .
For pretty obvious reasons -- its certainly a manner in which humans are generally pretty comfortable interacting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Natural language has always been a fad Um, what?Natural language has been pretty popular for longer than all of recorded history, so its clearly not a fad.Its also been pretty constantly a goal, for quite some time, to get computers to understand something approximating it for human interactions.
For pretty obvious reasons -- its certainly a manner in which humans are generally pretty comfortable interacting.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279812</id>
	<title>Re:Open Source Projects</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1267103100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It happens all the time in closed source projects too, you just never hear about them</i></p><p>If a tree falls in the woods and I don't hear it, do I care?  No.  Open source is generally publicly known, especially if it is a large project, so I do feel a bit of remorse when I know a project has been abandoned by its lead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It happens all the time in closed source projects too , you just never hear about themIf a tree falls in the woods and I do n't hear it , do I care ?
No. Open source is generally publicly known , especially if it is a large project , so I do feel a bit of remorse when I know a project has been abandoned by its lead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It happens all the time in closed source projects too, you just never hear about themIf a tree falls in the woods and I don't hear it, do I care?
No.  Open source is generally publicly known, especially if it is a large project, so I do feel a bit of remorse when I know a project has been abandoned by its lead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280220</id>
	<title>Re:Open Source Projects</title>
	<author>gencha</author>
	<datestamp>1267105980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thou shalt not close parenthesis with an emote!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thou shalt not close parenthesis with an emote !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thou shalt not close parenthesis with an emote!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31282146</id>
	<title>Re:Mozilla don't focus on getting Labs ideas out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267127100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Their core browser is falling behind on speed and stability and I think they'll find it hard to catch up given the size/age/complexity of the Firefox codebase compared to Chrome.</p></div></blockquote><p>I see you haven't looked at the chromium code...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their core browser is falling behind on speed and stability and I think they 'll find it hard to catch up given the size/age/complexity of the Firefox codebase compared to Chrome.I see you have n't looked at the chromium code.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their core browser is falling behind on speed and stability and I think they'll find it hard to catch up given the size/age/complexity of the Firefox codebase compared to Chrome.I see you haven't looked at the chromium code...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279624</id>
	<title>How does this get me more beamtime?</title>
	<author>WillAffleckUW</author>
	<datestamp>1267101960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cause last time I checked, we invented the web so we could get more beamtime, and this has nothing to do with getting me more beamtime.</p><p>Natural language has always been a fad - it comes and goes in cycles, or at least since the late 70s when I started.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cause last time I checked , we invented the web so we could get more beamtime , and this has nothing to do with getting me more beamtime.Natural language has always been a fad - it comes and goes in cycles , or at least since the late 70s when I started .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cause last time I checked, we invented the web so we could get more beamtime, and this has nothing to do with getting me more beamtime.Natural language has always been a fad - it comes and goes in cycles, or at least since the late 70s when I started.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279438</id>
	<title>Re:Open Source Projects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267100520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you talk like this phenomenon is exclusive to open source? It happens all the time in closed source projects too, you just never hear about them because of NDAs or whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you talk like this phenomenon is exclusive to open source ?
It happens all the time in closed source projects too , you just never hear about them because of NDAs or whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you talk like this phenomenon is exclusive to open source?
It happens all the time in closed source projects too, you just never hear about them because of NDAs or whatever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31282668</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267177620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>"And there is huge demand for anyone to be able to write small snippets of code that lets them command the Web the way they want."</em>
<br>
<br>
<strong>What?</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>" And there is huge demand for anyone to be able to write small snippets of code that lets them command the Web the way they want .
" What ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And there is huge demand for anyone to be able to write small snippets of code that lets them command the Web the way they want.
"


What?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280390</id>
	<title>Re:Ubiquitous</title>
	<author>blackest\_k</author>
	<datestamp>1267107540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its not that ubiquity isnt good it is but most people don't know what it is or how to use it.</p><p>I use ubiquity mainly for translation if i need a language i use ubiquity  to translate in either direction this makes it possible to talk with anyone.</p><p>Thing is this is one small part of what ubiquity can do i havent a clue about 99\% of its functionality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its not that ubiquity isnt good it is but most people do n't know what it is or how to use it.I use ubiquity mainly for translation if i need a language i use ubiquity to translate in either direction this makes it possible to talk with anyone.Thing is this is one small part of what ubiquity can do i havent a clue about 99 \ % of its functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its not that ubiquity isnt good it is but most people don't know what it is or how to use it.I use ubiquity mainly for translation if i need a language i use ubiquity  to translate in either direction this makes it possible to talk with anyone.Thing is this is one small part of what ubiquity can do i havent a clue about 99\% of its functionality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279564</id>
	<title>Not surprised</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1267101540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the time, I remember thinking how awesome it -could- be, but how limited it was at the moment.</p><p>Then I realized that it was the programmer in me talking...  Having to type out written commands to make magic happen?  That's the Linux command line and most non-techies are horribly afraid of that.</p><p>I can't see it happening...  Some of the ideas may be used in a GUI medium instead, but the project as it was<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  Well, it was pretty much doomed from the start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the time , I remember thinking how awesome it -could- be , but how limited it was at the moment.Then I realized that it was the programmer in me talking... Having to type out written commands to make magic happen ?
That 's the Linux command line and most non-techies are horribly afraid of that.I ca n't see it happening... Some of the ideas may be used in a GUI medium instead , but the project as it was ... Well , it was pretty much doomed from the start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the time, I remember thinking how awesome it -could- be, but how limited it was at the moment.Then I realized that it was the programmer in me talking...  Having to type out written commands to make magic happen?
That's the Linux command line and most non-techies are horribly afraid of that.I can't see it happening...  Some of the ideas may be used in a GUI medium instead, but the project as it was ...  Well, it was pretty much doomed from the start.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280036</id>
	<title>Problem imo was,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267104600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for he kind of things i tried to do with it, i can do already with the search engines i installed, and keywords.<br>In fact, i remember trying out the examples and i had to type more. "w Firefox", is imo pretty fast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for he kind of things i tried to do with it , i can do already with the search engines i installed , and keywords.In fact , i remember trying out the examples and i had to type more .
" w Firefox " , is imo pretty fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for he kind of things i tried to do with it, i can do already with the search engines i installed, and keywords.In fact, i remember trying out the examples and i had to type more.
"w Firefox", is imo pretty fast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31281566</id>
	<title>Re:Open Source Projects</title>
	<author>tadariusven</author>
	<datestamp>1267119960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox is the best. Moreover while conceptually, Taskfox and Ubiquity might seem similar, Raskin noted that Taskfox is actually quite different than Ubiquity.
<a href="http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/ultimate-max-burn-review-free-trial-now-1809994.html" title="articlesbase.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/ultimate-max-burn-review-free-trial-now-1809994.html</a> [articlesbase.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox is the best .
Moreover while conceptually , Taskfox and Ubiquity might seem similar , Raskin noted that Taskfox is actually quite different than Ubiquity .
http : //www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/ultimate-max-burn-review-free-trial-now-1809994.html [ articlesbase.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox is the best.
Moreover while conceptually, Taskfox and Ubiquity might seem similar, Raskin noted that Taskfox is actually quite different than Ubiquity.
http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/ultimate-max-burn-review-free-trial-now-1809994.html [articlesbase.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280512</id>
	<title>Re:I'll be honest: I hope so. ;)</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1267108620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think it trough, you are likely swine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think it trough , you are likely swine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think it trough, you are likely swine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280016</id>
	<title>Vimperator</title>
	<author>DaveSlash</author>
	<datestamp>1267104420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Vimperator replaced Ubiquity in my browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vimperator replaced Ubiquity in my browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vimperator replaced Ubiquity in my browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31281002</id>
	<title>Rolled into the next firefox?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267113720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought I read somewhere it was being phased out of an addon because it was being rolled into the official firefox codebase and appear in the next major version. I really liked it, and while it seemed problematic (ie simply not working) for me, I'd like to see it continue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought I read somewhere it was being phased out of an addon because it was being rolled into the official firefox codebase and appear in the next major version .
I really liked it , and while it seemed problematic ( ie simply not working ) for me , I 'd like to see it continue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought I read somewhere it was being phased out of an addon because it was being rolled into the official firefox codebase and appear in the next major version.
I really liked it, and while it seemed problematic (ie simply not working) for me, I'd like to see it continue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279510</id>
	<title>Why are we surprised?</title>
	<author>Ltap</author>
	<datestamp>1267101120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ignoring whether or not it being free software makes a difference - every software company tried its hand at it in the 90s. Their main justification for dropping it was that "the technology isn't advanced enough". It all seems to be part of an attempt to copy Star Trek's tech and use voice commands for computers. In reality, voice commands are incredibly inefficient and imprecise, and it's virtually impossible for a piece of software to try and sort through accents, dialects, and mumbling to guess at the true intent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ignoring whether or not it being free software makes a difference - every software company tried its hand at it in the 90s .
Their main justification for dropping it was that " the technology is n't advanced enough " .
It all seems to be part of an attempt to copy Star Trek 's tech and use voice commands for computers .
In reality , voice commands are incredibly inefficient and imprecise , and it 's virtually impossible for a piece of software to try and sort through accents , dialects , and mumbling to guess at the true intent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ignoring whether or not it being free software makes a difference - every software company tried its hand at it in the 90s.
Their main justification for dropping it was that "the technology isn't advanced enough".
It all seems to be part of an attempt to copy Star Trek's tech and use voice commands for computers.
In reality, voice commands are incredibly inefficient and imprecise, and it's virtually impossible for a piece of software to try and sort through accents, dialects, and mumbling to guess at the true intent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279572</id>
	<title>Was really useful, but buggy</title>
	<author>chetbox</author>
	<datestamp>1267101600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha. I just went and read about this myself.
Personally I found ubiquity really useful. I loved the way I could select a postcode, press a keyboard combo and then just type "map" to get an interactive Google Map. I especially liked the way I could subscribe to feeds of commands, most of which had a whole host of handy options. The natural language process part of it was simple, but easily good enough for the intended purpose.</p><p>The reason I stopped using it was because new versions weren't backwards compatible and cleaning up after an update became a bit of a mess. I don't know if others had the same experience?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha .
I just went and read about this myself .
Personally I found ubiquity really useful .
I loved the way I could select a postcode , press a keyboard combo and then just type " map " to get an interactive Google Map .
I especially liked the way I could subscribe to feeds of commands , most of which had a whole host of handy options .
The natural language process part of it was simple , but easily good enough for the intended purpose.The reason I stopped using it was because new versions were n't backwards compatible and cleaning up after an update became a bit of a mess .
I do n't know if others had the same experience ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha.
I just went and read about this myself.
Personally I found ubiquity really useful.
I loved the way I could select a postcode, press a keyboard combo and then just type "map" to get an interactive Google Map.
I especially liked the way I could subscribe to feeds of commands, most of which had a whole host of handy options.
The natural language process part of it was simple, but easily good enough for the intended purpose.The reason I stopped using it was because new versions weren't backwards compatible and cleaning up after an update became a bit of a mess.
I don't know if others had the same experience?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280578</id>
	<title>Commands in a browser</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1267109220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vimperator, the one plugin the keeps me on firefox. Of course the kids won't like it much since it requires the use of the keyboard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vimperator , the one plugin the keeps me on firefox .
Of course the kids wo n't like it much since it requires the use of the keyboard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vimperator, the one plugin the keeps me on firefox.
Of course the kids won't like it much since it requires the use of the keyboard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31289210</id>
	<title>I wouldn't blame Open Source</title>
	<author>gjt</author>
	<datestamp>1267215300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just watched the Ubiquity video again for the first time in years to refresh my memory. It's pretty awesome. But it's also a pretty major project that Mozilla can't really do themselves. Web sites need to implement "verbs" for it to work. And browsers other than Mozilla need to implement it too.</p><p>That said, I hope it comes back to life and improves. Hey, maybe this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. post will entice some readers to become Ubiquity developers. Maybe Google can help too and bring it to Chrome - and I don't mean as an extension, but a built in feature (Firefox too). If it's built-in, as opposed to an add on, more users will have access to it and web site developers will have a bigger audience to code verbs for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just watched the Ubiquity video again for the first time in years to refresh my memory .
It 's pretty awesome .
But it 's also a pretty major project that Mozilla ca n't really do themselves .
Web sites need to implement " verbs " for it to work .
And browsers other than Mozilla need to implement it too.That said , I hope it comes back to life and improves .
Hey , maybe this / .
post will entice some readers to become Ubiquity developers .
Maybe Google can help too and bring it to Chrome - and I do n't mean as an extension , but a built in feature ( Firefox too ) .
If it 's built-in , as opposed to an add on , more users will have access to it and web site developers will have a bigger audience to code verbs for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just watched the Ubiquity video again for the first time in years to refresh my memory.
It's pretty awesome.
But it's also a pretty major project that Mozilla can't really do themselves.
Web sites need to implement "verbs" for it to work.
And browsers other than Mozilla need to implement it too.That said, I hope it comes back to life and improves.
Hey, maybe this /.
post will entice some readers to become Ubiquity developers.
Maybe Google can help too and bring it to Chrome - and I don't mean as an extension, but a built in feature (Firefox too).
If it's built-in, as opposed to an add on, more users will have access to it and web site developers will have a bigger audience to code verbs for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279436</id>
	<title>one for all, and all for one</title>
	<author>ozzy85</author>
	<datestamp>1267100520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's sad! I really wanted it to be a plugin for in all web browsers, if not built into them to create smooth and efficient waves when web surfing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's sad !
I really wanted it to be a plugin for in all web browsers , if not built into them to create smooth and efficient waves when web surfing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's sad!
I really wanted it to be a plugin for in all web browsers, if not built into them to create smooth and efficient waves when web surfing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31281962</id>
	<title>Ubiquity was just proof that even good projects..</title>
	<author>msimm</author>
	<datestamp>1267124820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ubiquity was just proof that even good projects can make bad decisions. It was DOA. It interestingly solved a problem by doing something no-one needed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubiquity was just proof that even good projects can make bad decisions .
It was DOA .
It interestingly solved a problem by doing something no-one needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubiquity was just proof that even good projects can make bad decisions.
It was DOA.
It interestingly solved a problem by doing something no-one needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31283014</id>
	<title>Nooooooo!</title>
	<author>RHaddon</author>
	<datestamp>1267181880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah no!! I love Ubiquity it's the best tool out there for translating or getting dictionary definitions coincidentally when surfing the web</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah no ! !
I love Ubiquity it 's the best tool out there for translating or getting dictionary definitions coincidentally when surfing the web</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah no!!
I love Ubiquity it's the best tool out there for translating or getting dictionary definitions coincidentally when surfing the web</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279608</id>
	<title>Not quite a killer app, but not too far off.</title>
	<author>blattin</author>
	<datestamp>1267101840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember being rather excited when I first saw the demo for it. Now I generally only use it for translation and mapping.

Anyone else think Ubiquity is screaming for speech recognition?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember being rather excited when I first saw the demo for it .
Now I generally only use it for translation and mapping .
Anyone else think Ubiquity is screaming for speech recognition ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember being rather excited when I first saw the demo for it.
Now I generally only use it for translation and mapping.
Anyone else think Ubiquity is screaming for speech recognition?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280112</id>
	<title>Re:Ubiquitous</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1267105260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might also say that Raskin works from a different definition of <b>"Huge Demand"</b> than the rest of us.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"There is huge demand for being able to connect the Web with language &mdash; to not have to move from one site to another to complete your daily tasks,"</p></div><p>Ah, no, Raskin, there isn't a huge demand for this.  I don't want to deal with my bank account while logged into Google, and I don't want to have every thing I do on the web done from one place.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"And there is huge demand for anyone to be able to write small snippets of code that lets them command the Web the way they want.</p> </div><p>Again Wrong Wrong Wrong.  Less than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.002 percent of web users have even the slightest desire to command the web the way they want, and even fewer want to "write snippets of code".  Its time to expand your world view beyond your hacker-cave.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Ubiquity gave everyday developers a voice with how the browser and the Web works."</p> </div><p>  "Everyday developers"?  WTF?  So finally at the end of the quote it becomes clear he was talking about 1/1000th of web users, the people who use the web for development daily, who probably managed just fine without Ubiquity.</p><p>This project deserved to die.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You might also say that Raskin works from a different definition of " Huge Demand " than the rest of us .
" There is huge demand for being able to connect the Web with language    to not have to move from one site to another to complete your daily tasks , " Ah , no , Raskin , there is n't a huge demand for this .
I do n't want to deal with my bank account while logged into Google , and I do n't want to have every thing I do on the web done from one place .
" And there is huge demand for anyone to be able to write small snippets of code that lets them command the Web the way they want .
Again Wrong Wrong Wrong .
Less than .002 percent of web users have even the slightest desire to command the web the way they want , and even fewer want to " write snippets of code " .
Its time to expand your world view beyond your hacker-cave.Ubiquity gave everyday developers a voice with how the browser and the Web works .
" " Everyday developers " ?
WTF ? So finally at the end of the quote it becomes clear he was talking about 1/1000th of web users , the people who use the web for development daily , who probably managed just fine without Ubiquity.This project deserved to die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might also say that Raskin works from a different definition of "Huge Demand" than the rest of us.
"There is huge demand for being able to connect the Web with language — to not have to move from one site to another to complete your daily tasks,"Ah, no, Raskin, there isn't a huge demand for this.
I don't want to deal with my bank account while logged into Google, and I don't want to have every thing I do on the web done from one place.
"And there is huge demand for anyone to be able to write small snippets of code that lets them command the Web the way they want.
Again Wrong Wrong Wrong.
Less than .002 percent of web users have even the slightest desire to command the web the way they want, and even fewer want to "write snippets of code".
Its time to expand your world view beyond your hacker-cave.Ubiquity gave everyday developers a voice with how the browser and the Web works.
"   "Everyday developers"?
WTF?  So finally at the end of the quote it becomes clear he was talking about 1/1000th of web users, the people who use the web for development daily, who probably managed just fine without Ubiquity.This project deserved to die.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31282106</id>
	<title>Re:How does this get me more beamtime?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1267126620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Natural language (AS INPUT TO A COMPUTER) has always been a fad.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Its been a continuous area of research that has been regularly producing new products and offerings for several decades. There are certainly monents in times where particular approaches or areas of application are transitorily popular and might be remotely fairly described as "fads", but the broad subject itself is very much not a fad, and never has been.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Natural language ( AS INPUT TO A COMPUTER ) has always been a fad .
Its been a continuous area of research that has been regularly producing new products and offerings for several decades .
There are certainly monents in times where particular approaches or areas of application are transitorily popular and might be remotely fairly described as " fads " , but the broad subject itself is very much not a fad , and never has been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Natural language (AS INPUT TO A COMPUTER) has always been a fad.
Its been a continuous area of research that has been regularly producing new products and offerings for several decades.
There are certainly monents in times where particular approaches or areas of application are transitorily popular and might be remotely fairly described as "fads", but the broad subject itself is very much not a fad, and never has been.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280398</id>
	<title>Re:How does this get me more beamtime?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267107600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It never occurs to you twits that if you feel a need to state the obvious, it's because you missed the point.  I know, such considerations detract from feeling that the obvious is obvious only to you because you're special just like Mama always said you were.
<br> <br>
Natural language (AS INPUT TO A COMPUTER) has always been a fad.  That was the context of the statement.  Any statements about humans who use natural language to communicate directly with other humans are completely irrelevant, Sparky.
<br> <br>
GP was right.  Natural language queries (AS INPUT TO A COMPUTER - just for you so you don't get confused again) are a fad that comes up from time to time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It never occurs to you twits that if you feel a need to state the obvious , it 's because you missed the point .
I know , such considerations detract from feeling that the obvious is obvious only to you because you 're special just like Mama always said you were .
Natural language ( AS INPUT TO A COMPUTER ) has always been a fad .
That was the context of the statement .
Any statements about humans who use natural language to communicate directly with other humans are completely irrelevant , Sparky .
GP was right .
Natural language queries ( AS INPUT TO A COMPUTER - just for you so you do n't get confused again ) are a fad that comes up from time to time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It never occurs to you twits that if you feel a need to state the obvious, it's because you missed the point.
I know, such considerations detract from feeling that the obvious is obvious only to you because you're special just like Mama always said you were.
Natural language (AS INPUT TO A COMPUTER) has always been a fad.
That was the context of the statement.
Any statements about humans who use natural language to communicate directly with other humans are completely irrelevant, Sparky.
GP was right.
Natural language queries (AS INPUT TO A COMPUTER - just for you so you don't get confused again) are a fad that comes up from time to time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280478</id>
	<title>Not surprising</title>
	<author>cecom</author>
	<datestamp>1267108260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can't say I am surprised. I had never heard of it before, so I diligently clicked all the links in TFA. Yet, within a couple of minutes I still wasn't able to figure out what it was.

There were not very useful comparisons with "Launchy", which I haven't heard of either.

May be I need to see a live demo to "get it", or may be it is too ahead of its time, or may be it is just garbage. I really don't know, but either way it isn't surprising that it hasn't caught on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't say I am surprised .
I had never heard of it before , so I diligently clicked all the links in TFA .
Yet , within a couple of minutes I still was n't able to figure out what it was .
There were not very useful comparisons with " Launchy " , which I have n't heard of either .
May be I need to see a live demo to " get it " , or may be it is too ahead of its time , or may be it is just garbage .
I really do n't know , but either way it is n't surprising that it has n't caught on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't say I am surprised.
I had never heard of it before, so I diligently clicked all the links in TFA.
Yet, within a couple of minutes I still wasn't able to figure out what it was.
There were not very useful comparisons with "Launchy", which I haven't heard of either.
May be I need to see a live demo to "get it", or may be it is too ahead of its time, or may be it is just garbage.
I really don't know, but either way it isn't surprising that it hasn't caught on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280640</id>
	<title>Archy</title>
	<author>lyinhart</author>
	<datestamp>1267109820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope that Raskin resumes work on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archy" title="wikipedia.org">Archy</a> [wikipedia.org], a really promising zooming user interface project started by his dad long ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope that Raskin resumes work on Archy [ wikipedia.org ] , a really promising zooming user interface project started by his dad long ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope that Raskin resumes work on Archy [wikipedia.org], a really promising zooming user interface project started by his dad long ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279340</id>
	<title>Open Source Projects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267099860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It happens to a lot of OSS projects. Suddenly the developers interest just dies and they start doing something else. Just like in our childhood we coded some funny little game for a day (not that I didn't make some cool stuff back then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) and then started on an another project. It needs more motivation to continue some project past the starting interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It happens to a lot of OSS projects .
Suddenly the developers interest just dies and they start doing something else .
Just like in our childhood we coded some funny little game for a day ( not that I did n't make some cool stuff back then : ) and then started on an another project .
It needs more motivation to continue some project past the starting interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It happens to a lot of OSS projects.
Suddenly the developers interest just dies and they start doing something else.
Just like in our childhood we coded some funny little game for a day (not that I didn't make some cool stuff back then :) and then started on an another project.
It needs more motivation to continue some project past the starting interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280094</id>
	<title>Re:Follow best practices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267105140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the code written so far is well documented,</p></div><p>Nope, it's open source.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the code written so far is well documented,Nope , it 's open source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the code written so far is well documented,Nope, it's open source.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31281728</id>
	<title>Re:Ubiquitous</title>
	<author>Yaztromo</author>
	<datestamp>1267122000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  "Everyday developers"?  WTF?  So finally at the end of the quote it becomes clear he was talking about 1/1000th of web users, the people who use the web for development daily, who probably managed just fine without Ubiquity.</p><p>This project deserved to die.</p></div><p>I agree.  I was one of those "everyday developers", and one afternoon quickly put together the first ROT-13 encoder for Ubiquity 0.1 (<a href="http://web.me.com/yaztromo/rot13-ubiq.html" title="me.com">link</a> [me.com]) (probably one of the first 20 Ubiquity plug-ins).  I added it to their Wiki, and registered it with Ubiquity Herd.  I watched it for some time to see the number of people who were using it, and was happy to see a variety of people doing so.  It was simple, well debugged, and worked as expected.
</p><p>Some time later, they upgraded Ubiquity, and required all of the plug-ins to be changed.  Not that there was any real notification that it had changed and that my plug-in had to be updated, but having watched it relatively closely, I discovered the update after a week or so, updated my plug-in, and went on my merry way.
</p><p>At some point later (after some time), I went to check Herd out of curiosity to see how many people were using my plug-in.  And you know what?  They dropped it from Herd, and replaced it with someone else's ROT-13 encoder plug-in!  From that point on, I wanted nothing to do with keeping my plug-in updated.  There was no notice to plug-in developers when API changes that required plug-ins to be rewritten were made (and these were made <i>in virtually every single Ubiquity release!</i>), no notice of being dropped off Herd (which was the way most people found plug-ins) or reasons why, nothing.
</p><p>I did keep it up to date on my personal Firefox install, but you know what?  I virtually never used it.  I eventually let Firefox drop it when I installed Firefox 3.6.  It simply wasn't useful enough.  And 99.999\% of people out there <i>don't want to type commands to do things</i>.  It was always more of a "web hackers tool", and positioning it as anything else was just silly.  Couple that with the fact that Ubiquity wasn't particularly friendly to those same "web hackers" (at least it wasn't to <i>this</i> old hacker...) that were writing plug-ins for it, and it was pretty much destined to go nowhere.
</p><p>So good riddance, I say.  Ubiquity promised the moon, but was only ever useful to those who weren't afraid of a command line for 1\% of their usual tasks.  Hopefully the developers involved in the core project will learn some lessons from it moving forward for their own sake.
</p><p>Yaz.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Everyday developers " ?
WTF ? So finally at the end of the quote it becomes clear he was talking about 1/1000th of web users , the people who use the web for development daily , who probably managed just fine without Ubiquity.This project deserved to die.I agree .
I was one of those " everyday developers " , and one afternoon quickly put together the first ROT-13 encoder for Ubiquity 0.1 ( link [ me.com ] ) ( probably one of the first 20 Ubiquity plug-ins ) .
I added it to their Wiki , and registered it with Ubiquity Herd .
I watched it for some time to see the number of people who were using it , and was happy to see a variety of people doing so .
It was simple , well debugged , and worked as expected .
Some time later , they upgraded Ubiquity , and required all of the plug-ins to be changed .
Not that there was any real notification that it had changed and that my plug-in had to be updated , but having watched it relatively closely , I discovered the update after a week or so , updated my plug-in , and went on my merry way .
At some point later ( after some time ) , I went to check Herd out of curiosity to see how many people were using my plug-in .
And you know what ?
They dropped it from Herd , and replaced it with someone else 's ROT-13 encoder plug-in !
From that point on , I wanted nothing to do with keeping my plug-in updated .
There was no notice to plug-in developers when API changes that required plug-ins to be rewritten were made ( and these were made in virtually every single Ubiquity release !
) , no notice of being dropped off Herd ( which was the way most people found plug-ins ) or reasons why , nothing .
I did keep it up to date on my personal Firefox install , but you know what ?
I virtually never used it .
I eventually let Firefox drop it when I installed Firefox 3.6 .
It simply was n't useful enough .
And 99.999 \ % of people out there do n't want to type commands to do things .
It was always more of a " web hackers tool " , and positioning it as anything else was just silly .
Couple that with the fact that Ubiquity was n't particularly friendly to those same " web hackers " ( at least it was n't to this old hacker... ) that were writing plug-ins for it , and it was pretty much destined to go nowhere .
So good riddance , I say .
Ubiquity promised the moon , but was only ever useful to those who were n't afraid of a command line for 1 \ % of their usual tasks .
Hopefully the developers involved in the core project will learn some lessons from it moving forward for their own sake .
Yaz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  "Everyday developers"?
WTF?  So finally at the end of the quote it becomes clear he was talking about 1/1000th of web users, the people who use the web for development daily, who probably managed just fine without Ubiquity.This project deserved to die.I agree.
I was one of those "everyday developers", and one afternoon quickly put together the first ROT-13 encoder for Ubiquity 0.1 (link [me.com]) (probably one of the first 20 Ubiquity plug-ins).
I added it to their Wiki, and registered it with Ubiquity Herd.
I watched it for some time to see the number of people who were using it, and was happy to see a variety of people doing so.
It was simple, well debugged, and worked as expected.
Some time later, they upgraded Ubiquity, and required all of the plug-ins to be changed.
Not that there was any real notification that it had changed and that my plug-in had to be updated, but having watched it relatively closely, I discovered the update after a week or so, updated my plug-in, and went on my merry way.
At some point later (after some time), I went to check Herd out of curiosity to see how many people were using my plug-in.
And you know what?
They dropped it from Herd, and replaced it with someone else's ROT-13 encoder plug-in!
From that point on, I wanted nothing to do with keeping my plug-in updated.
There was no notice to plug-in developers when API changes that required plug-ins to be rewritten were made (and these were made in virtually every single Ubiquity release!
), no notice of being dropped off Herd (which was the way most people found plug-ins) or reasons why, nothing.
I did keep it up to date on my personal Firefox install, but you know what?
I virtually never used it.
I eventually let Firefox drop it when I installed Firefox 3.6.
It simply wasn't useful enough.
And 99.999\% of people out there don't want to type commands to do things.
It was always more of a "web hackers tool", and positioning it as anything else was just silly.
Couple that with the fact that Ubiquity wasn't particularly friendly to those same "web hackers" (at least it wasn't to this old hacker...) that were writing plug-ins for it, and it was pretty much destined to go nowhere.
So good riddance, I say.
Ubiquity promised the moon, but was only ever useful to those who weren't afraid of a command line for 1\% of their usual tasks.
Hopefully the developers involved in the core project will learn some lessons from it moving forward for their own sake.
Yaz.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279994</id>
	<title>I'll be honest: I hope so. ;)</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267104300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frankly, the basic idea was not that bad. But everything was awful.</p><p>Basically, Firefox with Ubiquity had at least 3 things, to do the exact same thing:<br>1. The search input field (top right): Choose a search and enter the query.<br>2. The keyword search (URL field): Enter the keyword (e.g. dict), followed by the query.<br>3. Use Ubiquity, enter the keyword, and the parameters/query.</p><p>Of course, Ubiquity was more. Because it was a generalization of [1] and [2] to GET/POSTs with multiple fields.<br>But that could have easily be implemented right in the URL bar. (Or search field for people who prefer that. [Although I don&rsquo;t know why.])</p><p>Then again, if you think that thing trough to the end, you gonna end up with a general property/option box and a general communication protocol between servers and clients. And such general solutions are great because they usually offer huge emergence (the ability to do much with little interface complexity).<br>But we already have that. More than once. And the newest standard is XForms.<br>Doesn&rsquo;t make much sense to cram it into the browser UI itself though.</p><p>And I haven&rsquo;t even talked about how when you think it trough to the very end, you just end up with algorithms and data structures again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , the basic idea was not that bad .
But everything was awful.Basically , Firefox with Ubiquity had at least 3 things , to do the exact same thing : 1 .
The search input field ( top right ) : Choose a search and enter the query.2 .
The keyword search ( URL field ) : Enter the keyword ( e.g .
dict ) , followed by the query.3 .
Use Ubiquity , enter the keyword , and the parameters/query.Of course , Ubiquity was more .
Because it was a generalization of [ 1 ] and [ 2 ] to GET/POSTs with multiple fields.But that could have easily be implemented right in the URL bar .
( Or search field for people who prefer that .
[ Although I don    t know why .
] ) Then again , if you think that thing trough to the end , you gon na end up with a general property/option box and a general communication protocol between servers and clients .
And such general solutions are great because they usually offer huge emergence ( the ability to do much with little interface complexity ) .But we already have that .
More than once .
And the newest standard is XForms.Doesn    t make much sense to cram it into the browser UI itself though.And I haven    t even talked about how when you think it trough to the very end , you just end up with algorithms and data structures again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, the basic idea was not that bad.
But everything was awful.Basically, Firefox with Ubiquity had at least 3 things, to do the exact same thing:1.
The search input field (top right): Choose a search and enter the query.2.
The keyword search (URL field): Enter the keyword (e.g.
dict), followed by the query.3.
Use Ubiquity, enter the keyword, and the parameters/query.Of course, Ubiquity was more.
Because it was a generalization of [1] and [2] to GET/POSTs with multiple fields.But that could have easily be implemented right in the URL bar.
(Or search field for people who prefer that.
[Although I don’t know why.
])Then again, if you think that thing trough to the end, you gonna end up with a general property/option box and a general communication protocol between servers and clients.
And such general solutions are great because they usually offer huge emergence (the ability to do much with little interface complexity).But we already have that.
More than once.
And the newest standard is XForms.Doesn’t make much sense to cram it into the browser UI itself though.And I haven’t even talked about how when you think it trough to the very end, you just end up with algorithms and data structures again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31283980</id>
	<title>Re:Ubiquitous</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1267193940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't agree more.
</p><p>Half a million downloads may be a lot, but lets put that in perspective. From addons.mozilla.org: over 1.8 bln downloads for 109 mln add-ons in use. That means 17 downloads for one use. Or only about 30,000 users for Ubiquity. AdBlockPlus, the most popular add-on, clocks almost 900,000 downloads weekly, for a total of over 72 mln downloads now. Even geeky NoScript is doing almost 400,000 a week.
</p><p>If there were really great demand, then someone would have stepped in and continued development. Or similar projects would be around to try and do the same. There are plenty  more adblockers, for example.
</p><p>I have never tried Ubiquity, it may be a nice experiment, may have its uses, but is either not good enough or ahead of its time (rest of software/hardware not good enough yet). Too bad, and smart lead dev to try the idea seriously for two years, see it's leading no-where, and move on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't agree more .
Half a million downloads may be a lot , but lets put that in perspective .
From addons.mozilla.org : over 1.8 bln downloads for 109 mln add-ons in use .
That means 17 downloads for one use .
Or only about 30,000 users for Ubiquity .
AdBlockPlus , the most popular add-on , clocks almost 900,000 downloads weekly , for a total of over 72 mln downloads now .
Even geeky NoScript is doing almost 400,000 a week .
If there were really great demand , then someone would have stepped in and continued development .
Or similar projects would be around to try and do the same .
There are plenty more adblockers , for example .
I have never tried Ubiquity , it may be a nice experiment , may have its uses , but is either not good enough or ahead of its time ( rest of software/hardware not good enough yet ) .
Too bad , and smart lead dev to try the idea seriously for two years , see it 's leading no-where , and move on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't agree more.
Half a million downloads may be a lot, but lets put that in perspective.
From addons.mozilla.org: over 1.8 bln downloads for 109 mln add-ons in use.
That means 17 downloads for one use.
Or only about 30,000 users for Ubiquity.
AdBlockPlus, the most popular add-on, clocks almost 900,000 downloads weekly, for a total of over 72 mln downloads now.
Even geeky NoScript is doing almost 400,000 a week.
If there were really great demand, then someone would have stepped in and continued development.
Or similar projects would be around to try and do the same.
There are plenty  more adblockers, for example.
I have never tried Ubiquity, it may be a nice experiment, may have its uses, but is either not good enough or ahead of its time (rest of software/hardware not good enough yet).
Too bad, and smart lead dev to try the idea seriously for two years, see it's leading no-where, and move on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280566</id>
	<title>Re:Open Source Projects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267109100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it's like registering an account on Slashdot to post insightful comments and then realizing that your nickname backwards reads ASS P.O.S., which by itself would cause anyone intelligent to abandon it, but you decide to keep it, because you're writing bullshit comments all the time, so you're just being true to your nickname. You came here to be insightful, but you're just spreading bullshit that gets modded insightful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it 's like registering an account on Slashdot to post insightful comments and then realizing that your nickname backwards reads ASS P.O.S. , which by itself would cause anyone intelligent to abandon it , but you decide to keep it , because you 're writing bullshit comments all the time , so you 're just being true to your nickname .
You came here to be insightful , but you 're just spreading bullshit that gets modded insightful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it's like registering an account on Slashdot to post insightful comments and then realizing that your nickname backwards reads ASS P.O.S., which by itself would cause anyone intelligent to abandon it, but you decide to keep it, because you're writing bullshit comments all the time, so you're just being true to your nickname.
You came here to be insightful, but you're just spreading bullshit that gets modded insightful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31289834</id>
	<title>Awesome Bar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267175040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ubiquity inspired the Awesome Bar, which turned out to be useful enough for many.  For others, Google has many commands that fill such needs that Ubiquity is considered as reinventing the wheel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubiquity inspired the Awesome Bar , which turned out to be useful enough for many .
For others , Google has many commands that fill such needs that Ubiquity is considered as reinventing the wheel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubiquity inspired the Awesome Bar, which turned out to be useful enough for many.
For others, Google has many commands that fill such needs that Ubiquity is considered as reinventing the wheel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31282074</id>
	<title>Re:In a nutshell</title>
	<author>patro</author>
	<datestamp>1267126260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bad for you. It's very useful for quick calculations, translations, map searches, etc.  I find it most useful to add tasks effortlessly to my Google Calendar.</p><p>I suggest you to try it, because it's quite handy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad for you .
It 's very useful for quick calculations , translations , map searches , etc .
I find it most useful to add tasks effortlessly to my Google Calendar.I suggest you to try it , because it 's quite handy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad for you.
It's very useful for quick calculations, translations, map searches, etc.
I find it most useful to add tasks effortlessly to my Google Calendar.I suggest you to try it, because it's quite handy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31281624</id>
	<title>I loved Ubiquity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267120620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'twasn't much, but I had hoped for Ubiquity everywhere, not just he browser. It needs to be an OS add-on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'t was n't much , but I had hoped for Ubiquity everywhere , not just he browser .
It needs to be an OS add-on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'twasn't much, but I had hoped for Ubiquity everywhere, not just he browser.
It needs to be an OS add-on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279362</id>
	<title>In a nutshell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267100040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember Mozilla Ubiquity?</p></div><p>No.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember Mozilla Ubiquity ? No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember Mozilla Ubiquity?No.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280406</id>
	<title>Yo0 Fail It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267107600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">but many Lfind it</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>but many Lfind it [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but many Lfind it [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280598</id>
	<title>Re:Pity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267109400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Version 0.1.9.1 still works fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Version 0.1.9.1 still works fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Version 0.1.9.1 still works fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279656</id>
	<title>Re:Open Source Projects</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1267102200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes but the difference between OSS and proprietary software is that if the main OSS developers just lose interest in the project, the project can be forked/development work taken over by another part of the OSS community.  The question is whether there is enough interest in the OSS community to resurrect Ubiquity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes but the difference between OSS and proprietary software is that if the main OSS developers just lose interest in the project , the project can be forked/development work taken over by another part of the OSS community .
The question is whether there is enough interest in the OSS community to resurrect Ubiquity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes but the difference between OSS and proprietary software is that if the main OSS developers just lose interest in the project, the project can be forked/development work taken over by another part of the OSS community.
The question is whether there is enough interest in the OSS community to resurrect Ubiquity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279384</id>
	<title>Follow best practices</title>
	<author>BhaKi</author>
	<datestamp>1267100160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the code written so far is well documented, there should be no problem for anyone to continue development.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the code written so far is well documented , there should be no problem for anyone to continue development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the code written so far is well documented, there should be no problem for anyone to continue development.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31309760</id>
	<title>Re:Pity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267359120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has been for a while<br>http://getsatisfaction.com/mozilla/topics/when\_will\_ubiquity\_support\_firefox\_3\_6b4</p><p>Cheers,<br>@Blu3fish</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has been for a whilehttp : //getsatisfaction.com/mozilla/topics/when \ _will \ _ubiquity \ _support \ _firefox \ _3 \ _6b4Cheers , @ Blu3fish</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has been for a whilehttp://getsatisfaction.com/mozilla/topics/when\_will\_ubiquity\_support\_firefox\_3\_6b4Cheers,@Blu3fish</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31288320</id>
	<title>Re:In a nutshell</title>
	<author>forpeterssake</author>
	<datestamp>1267212060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I sure hope it continues. It took a while to wrap my head around it, but after a while it was the most useful Firefox extension I used, second to AdBlock. Maps, emailing, web searches, image searches, calculator tasks, translations&mdash;Ubiquity was my go-too source.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I sure hope it continues .
It took a while to wrap my head around it , but after a while it was the most useful Firefox extension I used , second to AdBlock .
Maps , emailing , web searches , image searches , calculator tasks , translations    Ubiquity was my go-too source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sure hope it continues.
It took a while to wrap my head around it, but after a while it was the most useful Firefox extension I used, second to AdBlock.
Maps, emailing, web searches, image searches, calculator tasks, translations—Ubiquity was my go-too source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279362</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31282106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31283980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31281728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31282146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31288320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31281910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31281566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31281020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31282074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31289210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31289920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31309760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_238259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_238259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31281020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31282146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31281910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_238259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_238259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31289210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31281566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_238259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280398
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31282106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_238259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_238259.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_238259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_238259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31309760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_238259.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_238259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31282074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31288320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_238259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31289834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_238259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_238259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31281624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_238259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31283980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31281728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31280390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31289920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_238259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_238259.31279572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
