<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_10_2114220</id>
	<title>How To Manage Hundreds of Thousands of Documents?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1244626020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:ajmcello78@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">ajmcello78</a> writes <i>"We're a mid-sized aerospace company with over a hundred thousand documents stored out on our Samba servers that also need to be accessed from our satellite offices. We have a VPN set up for the remote sites and use the Samba net use command to map the remote shares. It's becoming quite a mess, sometimes quite slow, and there is really no naming or numbering convention in place for the files and directories. We end up with mixed casing, all uppercase, all lowercase, dashes and ampersands in the file names, and there are literally hundreds of directories to sort through before you can find the document you are looking for. Does anybody know of a good system or method to manage all these documents, and also make them available to our satellite offices?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ajmcello78 writes " We 're a mid-sized aerospace company with over a hundred thousand documents stored out on our Samba servers that also need to be accessed from our satellite offices .
We have a VPN set up for the remote sites and use the Samba net use command to map the remote shares .
It 's becoming quite a mess , sometimes quite slow , and there is really no naming or numbering convention in place for the files and directories .
We end up with mixed casing , all uppercase , all lowercase , dashes and ampersands in the file names , and there are literally hundreds of directories to sort through before you can find the document you are looking for .
Does anybody know of a good system or method to manage all these documents , and also make them available to our satellite offices ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ajmcello78 writes "We're a mid-sized aerospace company with over a hundred thousand documents stored out on our Samba servers that also need to be accessed from our satellite offices.
We have a VPN set up for the remote sites and use the Samba net use command to map the remote shares.
It's becoming quite a mess, sometimes quite slow, and there is really no naming or numbering convention in place for the files and directories.
We end up with mixed casing, all uppercase, all lowercase, dashes and ampersands in the file names, and there are literally hundreds of directories to sort through before you can find the document you are looking for.
Does anybody know of a good system or method to manage all these documents, and also make them available to our satellite offices?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28298121</id>
	<title>IntraLinks or similar?</title>
	<author>cloud0909</author>
	<datestamp>1244750340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Related question, has anyone used, or would recommend using IntraLinks to help manage a similar scenario?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Related question , has anyone used , or would recommend using IntraLinks to help manage a similar scenario ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Related question, has anyone used, or would recommend using IntraLinks to help manage a similar scenario?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286885</id>
	<title>How to make a vector space search engine in Perl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244635860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The OP doesn't grok vector space. He should search for, "how to make a vector space search engine in 12 lines of Perl".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The OP does n't grok vector space .
He should search for , " how to make a vector space search engine in 12 lines of Perl " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The OP doesn't grok vector space.
He should search for, "how to make a vector space search engine in 12 lines of Perl".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287931</id>
	<title>Re:Simple answer...</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1244643060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes I was think hire a librarian,  that's what they do organize large amounts of documents for retrieval. A big part of the posters problem is legacy documents she/he should start there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes I was think hire a librarian , that 's what they do organize large amounts of documents for retrieval .
A big part of the posters problem is legacy documents she/he should start there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes I was think hire a librarian,  that's what they do organize large amounts of documents for retrieval.
A big part of the posters problem is legacy documents she/he should start there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286657</id>
	<title>The big guys use...</title>
	<author>benow</author>
	<datestamp>1244634540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Documentum, docushare, livelink, sharepoint.

I've heard of documentum installs with 100m+ docs.  It's quite good, but expensive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Documentum , docushare , livelink , sharepoint .
I 've heard of documentum installs with 100m + docs .
It 's quite good , but expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Documentum, docushare, livelink, sharepoint.
I've heard of documentum installs with 100m+ docs.
It's quite good, but expensive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287119</id>
	<title>Have you checked out....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244637240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you checked out IntraLinks? (www.intralinks.com)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you checked out IntraLinks ?
( www.intralinks.com )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you checked out IntraLinks?
(www.intralinks.com)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28331183</id>
	<title>How To Manage Hundreds of Thousands of Documents?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244994060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the real answer is ofcourse to start to migrate to a model driven envirnment based on ontology and UML/SysML</p><p>word, excel, ppt etc were all designed to automate paper. in a truly digital word these will go the way of the computer drawn blue print (now replaced with 3-D models). information must go the same route.</p><p>if you look at your customers (lockheed Martin, Nothrop Grumen etc) they are all on some path to move to this paradigm.</p><p>Documents will simply become a proxy representation of a model like a 2 D plot of #D model.</p><p>some day designs will be on source forge in UML, SysML and OWL and other sources. just like code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the real answer is ofcourse to start to migrate to a model driven envirnment based on ontology and UML/SysMLword , excel , ppt etc were all designed to automate paper .
in a truly digital word these will go the way of the computer drawn blue print ( now replaced with 3-D models ) .
information must go the same route.if you look at your customers ( lockheed Martin , Nothrop Grumen etc ) they are all on some path to move to this paradigm.Documents will simply become a proxy representation of a model like a 2 D plot of # D model.some day designs will be on source forge in UML , SysML and OWL and other sources .
just like code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the real answer is ofcourse to start to migrate to a model driven envirnment based on ontology and UML/SysMLword, excel, ppt etc were all designed to automate paper.
in a truly digital word these will go the way of the computer drawn blue print (now replaced with 3-D models).
information must go the same route.if you look at your customers (lockheed Martin, Nothrop Grumen etc) they are all on some path to move to this paradigm.Documents will simply become a proxy representation of a model like a 2 D plot of #D model.some day designs will be on source forge in UML, SysML and OWL and other sources.
just like code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288713</id>
	<title>I feel your pain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244649420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was on a team that implementedthis for a very large Aircraft Engine company in the 90s.  (Still cooking along today).  I'll outline what we did (overkill for you but the principles are the same andthe techniquesmay well be borrowed.<br>We had over 3 million drawings mostly E size scanned at 200 DPI in our spinning cache. Millions more on optical jukebox (10 inch write-only platters.) (when we were done, scanning was an early part of the project.)<br>
&nbsp; What we were moving to was not savig the drawings but the 3-d Solid models.  We standardized on one CAD/CAM software solution. Sometimes we used others for conversion and interfaces but get one standard.  We did have a long standing drawing number and naming convention but when we were looking for files now we were getting into new territory and the naming was breaking down because people start by screwing around and then get discipline later (except they don't) .<br>We started by fixing what the process was rather than trying to fix the data first.  We had a large network of Unix and Windows workstations and used AFS to be the "official" file system for where the final drawings were stored because of the ability to create an abstract file structure with security and consistency.  This would be your analogue to NAS.  When files were issued,they became read only and stored with a serialized number with the path in a database (This is the Data management system you don't have but I used to call it the bag and tag system, the programs come down to a database with a number of seachable fields and a pointer to a filename path with a unique serial number identifying that version of the file.)  Get get a copy of that file, you log on to the database, find whatyou want and it copiesthat serialized file to your local path and renames it with the proper drawnig/part number.<br>We actually got into the drawing formats (the "frame" around the drawing where the drawing number goes and turned that into all parameters.  When you werre going to save the files for sharing and adding to the formal process, the drawing fromat forced the proper drawing number and other official info (engineer drafter issued by etc... all were parameters. When you saved the file, it created the filename based on the drawing number and part.suffix.This took care of standard filenames (not paths yet).  We then created a script (actually me) using Perl and Tcl/TK that did all the leg work of a simple electronic sign off system.  We had acces to the full electronic signoff systems and found them too inflexible and in general a nightmare to use.  Our engineers had good disipline WRT drawings and when to issue them so our system made use of that with a few users with certain roles.  An engineer could theoretically sign off on someone else's model but no one would unless authorized.  so we had several roles when someone wanted to issue a drawing, they chose who to notify mynameand position so they usually knew who needed it andif that person was out with someoone else covering they could still pick it up andmove it along without the beauraucracy.<br>Once signed off, the files would be opened by script to get the metadata parameters from the drawing format which was then put into the proper place.</p><p>We also ran into a problem where even a file that was opened, looked at and closed, the file contents changed because metadata was automatically saved to show that the file was opened.  We worked with the software CO. to stop thatbehavior.  We then went to a Posix Checksum program to test if the checksum of the file on the system matched the checksum of the local file, no match means a change was made.</p><p>I'm way over doing this, but I guess I'm saying get discipline by finding out where discipline already exists (there must be some somewhere) and hooking in to that discipline by automating in software what is stored and where.  Then start fixing what you have.  Otherwise you're herding cats forever.  ALso it starts to take care of itself because the hot stuff is getting used and revised so order starts to come to old files because of the new discipline enforced in software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was on a team that implementedthis for a very large Aircraft Engine company in the 90s .
( Still cooking along today ) .
I 'll outline what we did ( overkill for you but the principles are the same andthe techniquesmay well be borrowed.We had over 3 million drawings mostly E size scanned at 200 DPI in our spinning cache .
Millions more on optical jukebox ( 10 inch write-only platters .
) ( when we were done , scanning was an early part of the project .
)   What we were moving to was not savig the drawings but the 3-d Solid models .
We standardized on one CAD/CAM software solution .
Sometimes we used others for conversion and interfaces but get one standard .
We did have a long standing drawing number and naming convention but when we were looking for files now we were getting into new territory and the naming was breaking down because people start by screwing around and then get discipline later ( except they do n't ) .We started by fixing what the process was rather than trying to fix the data first .
We had a large network of Unix and Windows workstations and used AFS to be the " official " file system for where the final drawings were stored because of the ability to create an abstract file structure with security and consistency .
This would be your analogue to NAS .
When files were issued,they became read only and stored with a serialized number with the path in a database ( This is the Data management system you do n't have but I used to call it the bag and tag system , the programs come down to a database with a number of seachable fields and a pointer to a filename path with a unique serial number identifying that version of the file .
) Get get a copy of that file , you log on to the database , find whatyou want and it copiesthat serialized file to your local path and renames it with the proper drawnig/part number.We actually got into the drawing formats ( the " frame " around the drawing where the drawing number goes and turned that into all parameters .
When you werre going to save the files for sharing and adding to the formal process , the drawing fromat forced the proper drawing number and other official info ( engineer drafter issued by etc... all were parameters .
When you saved the file , it created the filename based on the drawing number and part.suffix.This took care of standard filenames ( not paths yet ) .
We then created a script ( actually me ) using Perl and Tcl/TK that did all the leg work of a simple electronic sign off system .
We had acces to the full electronic signoff systems and found them too inflexible and in general a nightmare to use .
Our engineers had good disipline WRT drawings and when to issue them so our system made use of that with a few users with certain roles .
An engineer could theoretically sign off on someone else 's model but no one would unless authorized .
so we had several roles when someone wanted to issue a drawing , they chose who to notify mynameand position so they usually knew who needed it andif that person was out with someoone else covering they could still pick it up andmove it along without the beauraucracy.Once signed off , the files would be opened by script to get the metadata parameters from the drawing format which was then put into the proper place.We also ran into a problem where even a file that was opened , looked at and closed , the file contents changed because metadata was automatically saved to show that the file was opened .
We worked with the software CO. to stop thatbehavior .
We then went to a Posix Checksum program to test if the checksum of the file on the system matched the checksum of the local file , no match means a change was made.I 'm way over doing this , but I guess I 'm saying get discipline by finding out where discipline already exists ( there must be some somewhere ) and hooking in to that discipline by automating in software what is stored and where .
Then start fixing what you have .
Otherwise you 're herding cats forever .
ALso it starts to take care of itself because the hot stuff is getting used and revised so order starts to come to old files because of the new discipline enforced in software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was on a team that implementedthis for a very large Aircraft Engine company in the 90s.
(Still cooking along today).
I'll outline what we did (overkill for you but the principles are the same andthe techniquesmay well be borrowed.We had over 3 million drawings mostly E size scanned at 200 DPI in our spinning cache.
Millions more on optical jukebox (10 inch write-only platters.
) (when we were done, scanning was an early part of the project.
)
  What we were moving to was not savig the drawings but the 3-d Solid models.
We standardized on one CAD/CAM software solution.
Sometimes we used others for conversion and interfaces but get one standard.
We did have a long standing drawing number and naming convention but when we were looking for files now we were getting into new territory and the naming was breaking down because people start by screwing around and then get discipline later (except they don't) .We started by fixing what the process was rather than trying to fix the data first.
We had a large network of Unix and Windows workstations and used AFS to be the "official" file system for where the final drawings were stored because of the ability to create an abstract file structure with security and consistency.
This would be your analogue to NAS.
When files were issued,they became read only and stored with a serialized number with the path in a database (This is the Data management system you don't have but I used to call it the bag and tag system, the programs come down to a database with a number of seachable fields and a pointer to a filename path with a unique serial number identifying that version of the file.
)  Get get a copy of that file, you log on to the database, find whatyou want and it copiesthat serialized file to your local path and renames it with the proper drawnig/part number.We actually got into the drawing formats (the "frame" around the drawing where the drawing number goes and turned that into all parameters.
When you werre going to save the files for sharing and adding to the formal process, the drawing fromat forced the proper drawing number and other official info (engineer drafter issued by etc... all were parameters.
When you saved the file, it created the filename based on the drawing number and part.suffix.This took care of standard filenames (not paths yet).
We then created a script (actually me) using Perl and Tcl/TK that did all the leg work of a simple electronic sign off system.
We had acces to the full electronic signoff systems and found them too inflexible and in general a nightmare to use.
Our engineers had good disipline WRT drawings and when to issue them so our system made use of that with a few users with certain roles.
An engineer could theoretically sign off on someone else's model but no one would unless authorized.
so we had several roles when someone wanted to issue a drawing, they chose who to notify mynameand position so they usually knew who needed it andif that person was out with someoone else covering they could still pick it up andmove it along without the beauraucracy.Once signed off, the files would be opened by script to get the metadata parameters from the drawing format which was then put into the proper place.We also ran into a problem where even a file that was opened, looked at and closed, the file contents changed because metadata was automatically saved to show that the file was opened.
We worked with the software CO. to stop thatbehavior.
We then went to a Posix Checksum program to test if the checksum of the file on the system matched the checksum of the local file, no match means a change was made.I'm way over doing this, but I guess I'm saying get discipline by finding out where discipline already exists (there must be some somewhere) and hooking in to that discipline by automating in software what is stored and where.
Then start fixing what you have.
Otherwise you're herding cats forever.
ALso it starts to take care of itself because the hot stuff is getting used and revised so order starts to come to old files because of the new discipline enforced in software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288011</id>
	<title>The ultimate document managment system</title>
	<author>zerofoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244643660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, so it is a bit hard to get your documents out once you put them in to <a href="http://www.shredit.com/" title="shredit.com">this</a> [shredit.com] system, but man, does it tidy up a mess of documents.</p><p>-ted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , so it is a bit hard to get your documents out once you put them in to this [ shredit.com ] system , but man , does it tidy up a mess of documents.-ted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, so it is a bit hard to get your documents out once you put them in to this [shredit.com] system, but man, does it tidy up a mess of documents.-ted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28292657</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244731200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, this is not the case. Although you \_can\_ use it just like a file system, this is not the optimal use. Documents can have relevant metadata assigned as part of a "Content Type" and then searched/sorted by type. As with anything else, the more up-front thought is given to the information being gathered, the more optimal the search result. This is true whether you are using Google, SharePoint, or any other search appliance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , this is not the case .
Although you \ _can \ _ use it just like a file system , this is not the optimal use .
Documents can have relevant metadata assigned as part of a " Content Type " and then searched/sorted by type .
As with anything else , the more up-front thought is given to the information being gathered , the more optimal the search result .
This is true whether you are using Google , SharePoint , or any other search appliance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, this is not the case.
Although you \_can\_ use it just like a file system, this is not the optimal use.
Documents can have relevant metadata assigned as part of a "Content Type" and then searched/sorted by type.
As with anything else, the more up-front thought is given to the information being gathered, the more optimal the search result.
This is true whether you are using Google, SharePoint, or any other search appliance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286777</id>
	<title>Re:Answered your own question</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1244635140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>No kidding, men are practically born with this instinct.<br> <br>
The most basic is dividing the images up according to hair color or the number of girls appearing in each photo.  Then you usually divide them up between hardcore and softcore, type of performance, fetish, etc.  For your favorites, you can keep a folder in the home directory, of course.  I know this guy works for an aerospace company, but keeping track of 500,000+ files isn't rocket science!  We've all been able to do that since the advent of the 200GB harddrive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No kidding , men are practically born with this instinct .
The most basic is dividing the images up according to hair color or the number of girls appearing in each photo .
Then you usually divide them up between hardcore and softcore , type of performance , fetish , etc .
For your favorites , you can keep a folder in the home directory , of course .
I know this guy works for an aerospace company , but keeping track of 500,000 + files is n't rocket science !
We 've all been able to do that since the advent of the 200GB harddrive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No kidding, men are practically born with this instinct.
The most basic is dividing the images up according to hair color or the number of girls appearing in each photo.
Then you usually divide them up between hardcore and softcore, type of performance, fetish, etc.
For your favorites, you can keep a folder in the home directory, of course.
I know this guy works for an aerospace company, but keeping track of 500,000+ files isn't rocket science!
We've all been able to do that since the advent of the 200GB harddrive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289037</id>
	<title>Use a Document Management System</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244652480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document\_management\_system</p><p>A DMS sounds like it is what you could use in this case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document \ _management \ _systemA DMS sounds like it is what you could use in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document\_management\_systemA DMS sounds like it is what you could use in this case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28292079</id>
	<title>Worldox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244729160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would go with Worldox.  It allows remote branches to search documents across a WAN and provides security too.  Does not use a SQL datgabase (i.e. no expensive licensing).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would go with Worldox .
It allows remote branches to search documents across a WAN and provides security too .
Does not use a SQL datgabase ( i.e .
no expensive licensing ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would go with Worldox.
It allows remote branches to search documents across a WAN and provides security too.
Does not use a SQL datgabase (i.e.
no expensive licensing).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287243</id>
	<title>Re:Documentum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244638200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, once you start talking about "hundreds of thousands" of documents you need a CMS (a powerful one at that).<br>Sharepoint probably won't cut it, you're only really left with Documentum and Filenet.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And can be accessed thru cached server from different sites.</p></div><p>To expand on this, you're basically running a Caching Server at each of these remote sites, when users request content it goes through Branch Office Caching Services (BOCS) to determine if there's a local copy of the file and that it's at the right version. If so, the download process (UCF) will get the file from the local cache automatically.</p><p>Documentum provides lots of products around getting all the content in as well.<br>Then, once you've got it in-house you can look at automating a lot of the internal business processes (expense reports, HR, etc) with the workflow engines.</p><p>(and yes, I do work for EMC, and no this is not an official statement)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , once you start talking about " hundreds of thousands " of documents you need a CMS ( a powerful one at that ) .Sharepoint probably wo n't cut it , you 're only really left with Documentum and Filenet.And can be accessed thru cached server from different sites.To expand on this , you 're basically running a Caching Server at each of these remote sites , when users request content it goes through Branch Office Caching Services ( BOCS ) to determine if there 's a local copy of the file and that it 's at the right version .
If so , the download process ( UCF ) will get the file from the local cache automatically.Documentum provides lots of products around getting all the content in as well.Then , once you 've got it in-house you can look at automating a lot of the internal business processes ( expense reports , HR , etc ) with the workflow engines .
( and yes , I do work for EMC , and no this is not an official statement )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, once you start talking about "hundreds of thousands" of documents you need a CMS (a powerful one at that).Sharepoint probably won't cut it, you're only really left with Documentum and Filenet.And can be accessed thru cached server from different sites.To expand on this, you're basically running a Caching Server at each of these remote sites, when users request content it goes through Branch Office Caching Services (BOCS) to determine if there's a local copy of the file and that it's at the right version.
If so, the download process (UCF) will get the file from the local cache automatically.Documentum provides lots of products around getting all the content in as well.Then, once you've got it in-house you can look at automating a lot of the internal business processes (expense reports, HR, etc) with the workflow engines.
(and yes, I do work for EMC, and no this is not an official statement)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288747</id>
	<title>index them - other options</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244649840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ok, so everyone else said "google appliance" for a reason, but here's some solutions that do similar:</p><p>Use Lucene to index your data ( by The Apache Foundation, so you know it's good ) - http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs/</p><p>Use Droids ( to crawl your existing data )  - http://incubator.apache.org/droids/<br>Use Tika ( to make your existing document formats into an index-able format -  excel, word, powerpoint, gzip, bzip, zip,  tar, mp3, xml, html, class, jar, odf, plain text, pdf, rtf -  all supported by default. ) - http://lucene.apache.org/tika/<br>use Solr  ( high performance search server built using Lucene Java, with XML/HTTP and JSON/Python/Ruby APIs, hit highlighting, faceted search, caching, replication, and a web admin interface.  )  - http://lucene.apache.org/solr/</p><p>optionally you might also find Forrest useful.   - "Apache Forrest&#226; software is a publishing framework that transforms input from various sources into a unified presentation in one or more output formats. "  ( http://forrest.apache.org/ )  - it's designed to work with Solr and Droids.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ok , so everyone else said " google appliance " for a reason , but here 's some solutions that do similar : Use Lucene to index your data ( by The Apache Foundation , so you know it 's good ) - http : //lucene.apache.org/java/docs/Use Droids ( to crawl your existing data ) - http : //incubator.apache.org/droids/Use Tika ( to make your existing document formats into an index-able format - excel , word , powerpoint , gzip , bzip , zip , tar , mp3 , xml , html , class , jar , odf , plain text , pdf , rtf - all supported by default .
) - http : //lucene.apache.org/tika/use Solr ( high performance search server built using Lucene Java , with XML/HTTP and JSON/Python/Ruby APIs , hit highlighting , faceted search , caching , replication , and a web admin interface .
) - http : //lucene.apache.org/solr/optionally you might also find Forrest useful .
- " Apache Forrest   software is a publishing framework that transforms input from various sources into a unified presentation in one or more output formats .
" ( http : //forrest.apache.org/ ) - it 's designed to work with Solr and Droids .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ok, so everyone else said "google appliance" for a reason, but here's some solutions that do similar:Use Lucene to index your data ( by The Apache Foundation, so you know it's good ) - http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs/Use Droids ( to crawl your existing data )  - http://incubator.apache.org/droids/Use Tika ( to make your existing document formats into an index-able format -  excel, word, powerpoint, gzip, bzip, zip,  tar, mp3, xml, html, class, jar, odf, plain text, pdf, rtf -  all supported by default.
) - http://lucene.apache.org/tika/use Solr  ( high performance search server built using Lucene Java, with XML/HTTP and JSON/Python/Ruby APIs, hit highlighting, faceted search, caching, replication, and a web admin interface.
)  - http://lucene.apache.org/solr/optionally you might also find Forrest useful.
- "Apache Forrestâ software is a publishing framework that transforms input from various sources into a unified presentation in one or more output formats.
"  ( http://forrest.apache.org/ )  - it's designed to work with Solr and Droids.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285909</id>
	<title>where is the slowdown?</title>
	<author>the\_denman</author>
	<datestamp>1244630760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think step one is to pick a storage/naming convention and stick with it.  Also depending on your needs a document management system could help.  The other thing I would do is look and figure out where the bottleneck is for your speed issue, is it the vpn connection, the network not being able to keep up, or the computer running samba.  Once you know more of where the slowdown is work on that spot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think step one is to pick a storage/naming convention and stick with it .
Also depending on your needs a document management system could help .
The other thing I would do is look and figure out where the bottleneck is for your speed issue , is it the vpn connection , the network not being able to keep up , or the computer running samba .
Once you know more of where the slowdown is work on that spot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think step one is to pick a storage/naming convention and stick with it.
Also depending on your needs a document management system could help.
The other thing I would do is look and figure out where the bottleneck is for your speed issue, is it the vpn connection, the network not being able to keep up, or the computer running samba.
Once you know more of where the slowdown is work on that spot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28290777</id>
	<title>Two products</title>
	<author>brentc3114</author>
	<datestamp>1244715300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work for a company that stores terabytes of documents.  There are two products that do this well EMC's documentum and Microsoft Sharepoint.  Pick your poison depending on whom you want to abuse you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a company that stores terabytes of documents .
There are two products that do this well EMC 's documentum and Microsoft Sharepoint .
Pick your poison depending on whom you want to abuse you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a company that stores terabytes of documents.
There are two products that do this well EMC's documentum and Microsoft Sharepoint.
Pick your poison depending on whom you want to abuse you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285657</id>
	<title>Answered your own question</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1244629980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>and there is really no naming or numbering convention in place for the files and directories.</i></p><p>I think you already know the answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and there is really no naming or numbering convention in place for the files and directories.I think you already know the answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and there is really no naming or numbering convention in place for the files and directories.I think you already know the answer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288535</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1244647800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>The nice thing about Sharepoint is, depending on the functionality you need it can be FREE (as in beer) if you can get away with Windows Sharepoint Services.</p><p>The company I work for really wanted A Document Management System.  They had tons of paperwork laying around.  We put in Sharepoint along with a product called KnowledgeLake.  Knowledgelake reads bar codes off documents that are printed or scanned to a network drive, grabs metadata from a SQL Server based on that bar code, and files the thing.  It is really no hassle at all.  Knowledgelake also adds a search component that is much better than the Sharepoint Search so finding documents is really really easy.  There is also a client program for the Knowledgelake system that lets you right click on a document, pick a document library to send the document to, and manually input the key field to grab the Metadata and file the document properly.</p><p>I don't know what types of documents you are looking to index but all MS Office documents integrate with Sharepoint, obviously....but the real issue is other file types.  Autocad Files, for Example, can be integrated into the Sharepoint System using third party applications (We ended up not going that direction so I can't remember what it is called..the company is named Bentley maybe?) and I am sure there are many other programs that have similar applications written for them.</p><p>So yeah, you can make fun of me for sounding like a Microsoft shill but I evaluated several other Document Management Systems and Sharepoint with Knowledge Lake turned out to be the one that the company felt most comfortable with....and it has served it's purpose well!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The nice thing about Sharepoint is , depending on the functionality you need it can be FREE ( as in beer ) if you can get away with Windows Sharepoint Services.The company I work for really wanted A Document Management System .
They had tons of paperwork laying around .
We put in Sharepoint along with a product called KnowledgeLake .
Knowledgelake reads bar codes off documents that are printed or scanned to a network drive , grabs metadata from a SQL Server based on that bar code , and files the thing .
It is really no hassle at all .
Knowledgelake also adds a search component that is much better than the Sharepoint Search so finding documents is really really easy .
There is also a client program for the Knowledgelake system that lets you right click on a document , pick a document library to send the document to , and manually input the key field to grab the Metadata and file the document properly.I do n't know what types of documents you are looking to index but all MS Office documents integrate with Sharepoint , obviously....but the real issue is other file types .
Autocad Files , for Example , can be integrated into the Sharepoint System using third party applications ( We ended up not going that direction so I ca n't remember what it is called..the company is named Bentley maybe ?
) and I am sure there are many other programs that have similar applications written for them.So yeah , you can make fun of me for sounding like a Microsoft shill but I evaluated several other Document Management Systems and Sharepoint with Knowledge Lake turned out to be the one that the company felt most comfortable with....and it has served it 's purpose well !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The nice thing about Sharepoint is, depending on the functionality you need it can be FREE (as in beer) if you can get away with Windows Sharepoint Services.The company I work for really wanted A Document Management System.
They had tons of paperwork laying around.
We put in Sharepoint along with a product called KnowledgeLake.
Knowledgelake reads bar codes off documents that are printed or scanned to a network drive, grabs metadata from a SQL Server based on that bar code, and files the thing.
It is really no hassle at all.
Knowledgelake also adds a search component that is much better than the Sharepoint Search so finding documents is really really easy.
There is also a client program for the Knowledgelake system that lets you right click on a document, pick a document library to send the document to, and manually input the key field to grab the Metadata and file the document properly.I don't know what types of documents you are looking to index but all MS Office documents integrate with Sharepoint, obviously....but the real issue is other file types.
Autocad Files, for Example, can be integrated into the Sharepoint System using third party applications (We ended up not going that direction so I can't remember what it is called..the company is named Bentley maybe?
) and I am sure there are many other programs that have similar applications written for them.So yeah, you can make fun of me for sounding like a Microsoft shill but I evaluated several other Document Management Systems and Sharepoint with Knowledge Lake turned out to be the one that the company felt most comfortable with....and it has served it's purpose well!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288677</id>
	<title>Subversion</title>
	<author>lars\_boegild\_thomsen</author>
	<datestamp>1244649120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not use subversion?  Files will be accessible using a subversion client (including log + history), as webdav (only current version) and through a standard browser (read-only).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not use subversion ?
Files will be accessible using a subversion client ( including log + history ) , as webdav ( only current version ) and through a standard browser ( read-only ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not use subversion?
Files will be accessible using a subversion client (including log + history), as webdav (only current version) and through a standard browser (read-only).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287251</id>
	<title>Documentum bad</title>
	<author>KhaymanUCSD</author>
	<datestamp>1244638260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm on the IT Applications side of things, not operations so my experience with this has been more as a user than as an admin (though I've helped that group on a few things)...
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but we implemented Documentum and have found it to be slow, difficult to deal with and I've heard no end of horror stories about how hard it was to implement.
<br> <br>
In all honesty we had a properly set up sharepoint (tsk!) solution at another company and it pretty much ran itself and did the job we needed it to do.  YMMV.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm on the IT Applications side of things , not operations so my experience with this has been more as a user than as an admin ( though I 've helped that group on a few things ) .. . ...but we implemented Documentum and have found it to be slow , difficult to deal with and I 've heard no end of horror stories about how hard it was to implement .
In all honesty we had a properly set up sharepoint ( tsk !
) solution at another company and it pretty much ran itself and did the job we needed it to do .
YMMV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm on the IT Applications side of things, not operations so my experience with this has been more as a user than as an admin (though I've helped that group on a few things)...
  ...but we implemented Documentum and have found it to be slow, difficult to deal with and I've heard no end of horror stories about how hard it was to implement.
In all honesty we had a properly set up sharepoint (tsk!
) solution at another company and it pretty much ran itself and did the job we needed it to do.
YMMV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289351</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244655840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Currently it feels like a 2.0 product (the magic rule is to never buy anything from Microsoft before 3.0</p></div><p>So you must be quite excited about the upcoming release of Windows 7?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Currently it feels like a 2.0 product ( the magic rule is to never buy anything from Microsoft before 3.0So you must be quite excited about the upcoming release of Windows 7 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Currently it feels like a 2.0 product (the magic rule is to never buy anything from Microsoft before 3.0So you must be quite excited about the upcoming release of Windows 7?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28291791</id>
	<title>Asking for pain</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1244727900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Samba shared over a VPN? Man, you are asking for no end of painful trouble. There are many good ways of sharing docs, but putting MS docs in a filesystem shared over a VPN is not one of them. A simple way to improve things would be to drop all the filesystem sharing and create some sort of searchable index on a web server. If you want more sophistication and have money to burn (who hasn't these days?), go and talk to Oracle, they have some very good software for this very purpose.</p><p>I don't know why companies always do it this way - it is the worst possible way of organizing your documents. When you put them in a filesystem, people have to try to remember how to find the one they need; a directory is like a hiearchical database, badly implemented. Sharing it via a networked filesystem makes it even worse, because now you have a huge network overhead and the risk of undetectable corruption when the network stumbles. And the VPN means that your network traffic is something like 10 times as heavy because of the encryption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Samba shared over a VPN ?
Man , you are asking for no end of painful trouble .
There are many good ways of sharing docs , but putting MS docs in a filesystem shared over a VPN is not one of them .
A simple way to improve things would be to drop all the filesystem sharing and create some sort of searchable index on a web server .
If you want more sophistication and have money to burn ( who has n't these days ?
) , go and talk to Oracle , they have some very good software for this very purpose.I do n't know why companies always do it this way - it is the worst possible way of organizing your documents .
When you put them in a filesystem , people have to try to remember how to find the one they need ; a directory is like a hiearchical database , badly implemented .
Sharing it via a networked filesystem makes it even worse , because now you have a huge network overhead and the risk of undetectable corruption when the network stumbles .
And the VPN means that your network traffic is something like 10 times as heavy because of the encryption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Samba shared over a VPN?
Man, you are asking for no end of painful trouble.
There are many good ways of sharing docs, but putting MS docs in a filesystem shared over a VPN is not one of them.
A simple way to improve things would be to drop all the filesystem sharing and create some sort of searchable index on a web server.
If you want more sophistication and have money to burn (who hasn't these days?
), go and talk to Oracle, they have some very good software for this very purpose.I don't know why companies always do it this way - it is the worst possible way of organizing your documents.
When you put them in a filesystem, people have to try to remember how to find the one they need; a directory is like a hiearchical database, badly implemented.
Sharing it via a networked filesystem makes it even worse, because now you have a huge network overhead and the risk of undetectable corruption when the network stumbles.
And the VPN means that your network traffic is something like 10 times as heavy because of the encryption.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597</id>
	<title>Google to the rescue?</title>
	<author>Shatrat</author>
	<datestamp>1244629740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't this the sort of thing that a google search appliance would be helpful for?
Then you don't need to know the exact filename, just some specific information that can identify the file.
This certainly solved my problem with having thousands of emails.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this the sort of thing that a google search appliance would be helpful for ?
Then you do n't need to know the exact filename , just some specific information that can identify the file .
This certainly solved my problem with having thousands of emails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this the sort of thing that a google search appliance would be helpful for?
Then you don't need to know the exact filename, just some specific information that can identify the file.
This certainly solved my problem with having thousands of emails.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285663</id>
	<title>it's all about the index</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The lack of a naming convention for the filenames and directories is neither here nor there.  What matters is how well it's indexed.</p><p>Now I use naming conventions for my files (photos<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,mp3s etc).  Am i contradicting myself?  No, it's because I don't have enough of them that I <i>need</i> a separate index.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lack of a naming convention for the filenames and directories is neither here nor there .
What matters is how well it 's indexed.Now I use naming conventions for my files ( photos ,mp3s etc ) .
Am i contradicting myself ?
No , it 's because I do n't have enough of them that I need a separate index .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lack of a naming convention for the filenames and directories is neither here nor there.
What matters is how well it's indexed.Now I use naming conventions for my files (photos ,mp3s etc).
Am i contradicting myself?
No, it's because I don't have enough of them that I need a separate index.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286705</id>
	<title>Garbage In Garbage Out</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1244634720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's becoming quite a mess, sometimes quite slow, and there is really no naming or numbering convention in place for the files and directories. We end up with mixed casing, all uppercase, all lowercase, dashes and ampersands in the file names, and there are literally hundreds of directories to sort through before you can find the document you are looking for.</p><p>Slow.  Upgrade your network and VPN.  You know that VPN layer is just killing your performance.</p><p>No naming or numbering convention.  Get one.</p><p>Mixed casing.  Learn How to Properly Case Folders (and documents).</p><p>Dashes and ampersands.  Are they a problem?  Aesthetically unpleasant?  I personally restrict punctuation in a filesystem to dashes, periods, and parenthesis (unless the punctuation is a replicable part of the name of the file/folder).</p><p>Examples:<br>01 - The First Track (vocal)<br>02 - $lashhvertisements Attack!<br>03 - Where Have All the A.C.'s Gone</p><p>Develop your own method that works and be obsessed about it to the point where you would reburn a disc if one of the filenames was "01-Name" instead of "01 - Name".</p><p>Hundreds of directories.<br>Each file should have it's own folder.<br>"That's insane!" you say.  Start out with this mentality.  If there is no reason at all to separate two files (they are part of the same thing) then place them in one folder, and make sure the folder is named all-encompasingly.  Repeat for all files.  If you get into a AB, BC, but not ABC situation, the solution is to have A and B and C, with A and C linking to B with your choice of shortcut/link/symlink/etc.<br>Do this until all files are in folders.  Then repeat with folders.</p><p>There is NO substitute for organization and getting people on the same page.  Develop some conventions.  Task people to fix as they go.  Check up to make sure people accessing documents are fixing as they go, and doing so according to convention.  Once people are used to the convention, and once things are relatively organized, they won't ever need to search again.  They'll instantly know where 99\% of things are, and will be able to dig around and find anything else within seconds.</p><p>The main problem you face is getting organized after already being unorganized.  It isn't easy, but at least you're not dealing with millions of paper documents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's becoming quite a mess , sometimes quite slow , and there is really no naming or numbering convention in place for the files and directories .
We end up with mixed casing , all uppercase , all lowercase , dashes and ampersands in the file names , and there are literally hundreds of directories to sort through before you can find the document you are looking for.Slow .
Upgrade your network and VPN .
You know that VPN layer is just killing your performance.No naming or numbering convention .
Get one.Mixed casing .
Learn How to Properly Case Folders ( and documents ) .Dashes and ampersands .
Are they a problem ?
Aesthetically unpleasant ?
I personally restrict punctuation in a filesystem to dashes , periods , and parenthesis ( unless the punctuation is a replicable part of the name of the file/folder ) .Examples : 01 - The First Track ( vocal ) 02 - $ lashhvertisements Attack ! 03 - Where Have All the A.C. 's GoneDevelop your own method that works and be obsessed about it to the point where you would reburn a disc if one of the filenames was " 01-Name " instead of " 01 - Name " .Hundreds of directories.Each file should have it 's own folder .
" That 's insane !
" you say .
Start out with this mentality .
If there is no reason at all to separate two files ( they are part of the same thing ) then place them in one folder , and make sure the folder is named all-encompasingly .
Repeat for all files .
If you get into a AB , BC , but not ABC situation , the solution is to have A and B and C , with A and C linking to B with your choice of shortcut/link/symlink/etc.Do this until all files are in folders .
Then repeat with folders.There is NO substitute for organization and getting people on the same page .
Develop some conventions .
Task people to fix as they go .
Check up to make sure people accessing documents are fixing as they go , and doing so according to convention .
Once people are used to the convention , and once things are relatively organized , they wo n't ever need to search again .
They 'll instantly know where 99 \ % of things are , and will be able to dig around and find anything else within seconds.The main problem you face is getting organized after already being unorganized .
It is n't easy , but at least you 're not dealing with millions of paper documents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's becoming quite a mess, sometimes quite slow, and there is really no naming or numbering convention in place for the files and directories.
We end up with mixed casing, all uppercase, all lowercase, dashes and ampersands in the file names, and there are literally hundreds of directories to sort through before you can find the document you are looking for.Slow.
Upgrade your network and VPN.
You know that VPN layer is just killing your performance.No naming or numbering convention.
Get one.Mixed casing.
Learn How to Properly Case Folders (and documents).Dashes and ampersands.
Are they a problem?
Aesthetically unpleasant?
I personally restrict punctuation in a filesystem to dashes, periods, and parenthesis (unless the punctuation is a replicable part of the name of the file/folder).Examples:01 - The First Track (vocal)02 - $lashhvertisements Attack!03 - Where Have All the A.C.'s GoneDevelop your own method that works and be obsessed about it to the point where you would reburn a disc if one of the filenames was "01-Name" instead of "01 - Name".Hundreds of directories.Each file should have it's own folder.
"That's insane!
" you say.
Start out with this mentality.
If there is no reason at all to separate two files (they are part of the same thing) then place them in one folder, and make sure the folder is named all-encompasingly.
Repeat for all files.
If you get into a AB, BC, but not ABC situation, the solution is to have A and B and C, with A and C linking to B with your choice of shortcut/link/symlink/etc.Do this until all files are in folders.
Then repeat with folders.There is NO substitute for organization and getting people on the same page.
Develop some conventions.
Task people to fix as they go.
Check up to make sure people accessing documents are fixing as they go, and doing so according to convention.
Once people are used to the convention, and once things are relatively organized, they won't ever need to search again.
They'll instantly know where 99\% of things are, and will be able to dig around and find anything else within seconds.The main problem you face is getting organized after already being unorganized.
It isn't easy, but at least you're not dealing with millions of paper documents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289201</id>
	<title>Checkout Isys by Odyssey</title>
	<author>LBook3</author>
	<datestamp>1244654220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a PC user, I have found one of the best products to manage hundreds of thousands of documents (*.doc, *.txt, *.wpd, *.xls, *.ppt, and email, images, etc.) is Isys by Odyssey. It requires very little work on the part of the endusers. Just searching. For the IT person, it requires very little to be up-and-running.

You can set up automatic indexing to run anytime, without restricting usage and searching. This can be done across all hard drives.

I found this little company (and their software) about 15 years ago when I was still using DOS. They have, of course, developed their software to match all the Windows versions that have come out, and have Web versions also.

I manage a huge library of both physical and digital documents - all that must be located within seconds. Without this software, I would not be able to perform this job in the high-level capacity that I currently do. Yes, Google is a great contender, but it has its limitations. Google desktop, for example, does not index all different types of software that the hundreds of users may have/use/need. I have found the Isys by Odyssey to not only be extremely fast, high quality, but they have great customer service, and their prices are reasonable.

You can always start slow - with a low number of licenses, and work your way up, depending on the company's finances and needs. We have 2 licenses, where I work. I currently am the main end-user to the product, and people request documents or information from me, which I can find and email to them in an instant.

It's worth the time to check them out. Their home web page is: <a href="http://www.isys-search.com/" title="isys-search.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.isys-search.com/</a> [isys-search.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a PC user , I have found one of the best products to manage hundreds of thousands of documents ( * .doc , * .txt , * .wpd , * .xls , * .ppt , and email , images , etc .
) is Isys by Odyssey .
It requires very little work on the part of the endusers .
Just searching .
For the IT person , it requires very little to be up-and-running .
You can set up automatic indexing to run anytime , without restricting usage and searching .
This can be done across all hard drives .
I found this little company ( and their software ) about 15 years ago when I was still using DOS .
They have , of course , developed their software to match all the Windows versions that have come out , and have Web versions also .
I manage a huge library of both physical and digital documents - all that must be located within seconds .
Without this software , I would not be able to perform this job in the high-level capacity that I currently do .
Yes , Google is a great contender , but it has its limitations .
Google desktop , for example , does not index all different types of software that the hundreds of users may have/use/need .
I have found the Isys by Odyssey to not only be extremely fast , high quality , but they have great customer service , and their prices are reasonable .
You can always start slow - with a low number of licenses , and work your way up , depending on the company 's finances and needs .
We have 2 licenses , where I work .
I currently am the main end-user to the product , and people request documents or information from me , which I can find and email to them in an instant .
It 's worth the time to check them out .
Their home web page is : http : //www.isys-search.com/ [ isys-search.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a PC user, I have found one of the best products to manage hundreds of thousands of documents (*.doc, *.txt, *.wpd, *.xls, *.ppt, and email, images, etc.
) is Isys by Odyssey.
It requires very little work on the part of the endusers.
Just searching.
For the IT person, it requires very little to be up-and-running.
You can set up automatic indexing to run anytime, without restricting usage and searching.
This can be done across all hard drives.
I found this little company (and their software) about 15 years ago when I was still using DOS.
They have, of course, developed their software to match all the Windows versions that have come out, and have Web versions also.
I manage a huge library of both physical and digital documents - all that must be located within seconds.
Without this software, I would not be able to perform this job in the high-level capacity that I currently do.
Yes, Google is a great contender, but it has its limitations.
Google desktop, for example, does not index all different types of software that the hundreds of users may have/use/need.
I have found the Isys by Odyssey to not only be extremely fast, high quality, but they have great customer service, and their prices are reasonable.
You can always start slow - with a low number of licenses, and work your way up, depending on the company's finances and needs.
We have 2 licenses, where I work.
I currently am the main end-user to the product, and people request documents or information from me, which I can find and email to them in an instant.
It's worth the time to check them out.
Their home web page is: http://www.isys-search.com/ [isys-search.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286845</id>
	<title>Just get OnBase, your own or have it hosted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244635560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OnBase -&gt; http://www.onbase.com/english/index.aspx</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OnBase - &gt; http : //www.onbase.com/english/index.aspx</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OnBase -&gt; http://www.onbase.com/english/index.aspx</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288945</id>
	<title>Re:file naming conventions and folders</title>
	<author>smitty97</author>
	<datestamp>1244651700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The 'job' folder contains several categories of jobs or projects, such as vehicles, engines, pumps, etc.</p><p>Inside those are folders with the project name.    Inside each project folder is a series of folders for different data types, such as solidworks, reports, proposals, documentation images, etc.</p><p>File naming:</p><p>File naming should be consistent, and I always start my own files with the date with year first, because I do not trust meta-data one single iota.   I have had dates wiped out when a backup system kept a backup, but did not preserve the file creation / modify date on copy.</p><p>After that it is the thing, then the version.</p><p>So 09-06-10\_widget\_v01.sldprt</p><p>version two should be exactly the same, with the number iterated up.  There should never be a document named something\_FINAL because you always end up with FINAL\_FINAL\_FINAL etc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div><p>Because of the way SolidWorks looks for and uses referenced files, having the version number as part of the filename is BAD. How on earth do you update your assemblies when youve got to replace all the files you modify all the time?  Either they dont get updated or you spend a lot of time with SW Explorer's Replace command.</p><p>If you ever move to a PDM system, and you should- even the free Workgroup one that's part of SW Office Pro, it will treat foo\_v01.sldprt and foo\_v02.sldprt as different files altogether, not versions.  In Workgroup PDM, the version is a custom property; in Enterprise PDM its in sql.  We have "job folders" similar to yours, with Docs (MS office, etc), Drawings (all CAD), Photos, Correspondence, etc.  We moved the solidworks stuff out to workgroup pdm.   It also takes care of write access issues when a few people are working on the same project- people can take "ownership" of a file they would like to change and check in a new version.</p><p>Give it a shot- you can set up a workgroup vault on your local machine and play with the settings.  After working with it for a while youll wonder how you did without it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 'job ' folder contains several categories of jobs or projects , such as vehicles , engines , pumps , etc.Inside those are folders with the project name .
Inside each project folder is a series of folders for different data types , such as solidworks , reports , proposals , documentation images , etc.File naming : File naming should be consistent , and I always start my own files with the date with year first , because I do not trust meta-data one single iota .
I have had dates wiped out when a backup system kept a backup , but did not preserve the file creation / modify date on copy.After that it is the thing , then the version.So 09-06-10 \ _widget \ _v01.sldprtversion two should be exactly the same , with the number iterated up .
There should never be a document named something \ _FINAL because you always end up with FINAL \ _FINAL \ _FINAL etc .
: ) Because of the way SolidWorks looks for and uses referenced files , having the version number as part of the filename is BAD .
How on earth do you update your assemblies when youve got to replace all the files you modify all the time ?
Either they dont get updated or you spend a lot of time with SW Explorer 's Replace command.If you ever move to a PDM system , and you should- even the free Workgroup one that 's part of SW Office Pro , it will treat foo \ _v01.sldprt and foo \ _v02.sldprt as different files altogether , not versions .
In Workgroup PDM , the version is a custom property ; in Enterprise PDM its in sql .
We have " job folders " similar to yours , with Docs ( MS office , etc ) , Drawings ( all CAD ) , Photos , Correspondence , etc .
We moved the solidworks stuff out to workgroup pdm .
It also takes care of write access issues when a few people are working on the same project- people can take " ownership " of a file they would like to change and check in a new version.Give it a shot- you can set up a workgroup vault on your local machine and play with the settings .
After working with it for a while youll wonder how you did without it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 'job' folder contains several categories of jobs or projects, such as vehicles, engines, pumps, etc.Inside those are folders with the project name.
Inside each project folder is a series of folders for different data types, such as solidworks, reports, proposals, documentation images, etc.File naming:File naming should be consistent, and I always start my own files with the date with year first, because I do not trust meta-data one single iota.
I have had dates wiped out when a backup system kept a backup, but did not preserve the file creation / modify date on copy.After that it is the thing, then the version.So 09-06-10\_widget\_v01.sldprtversion two should be exactly the same, with the number iterated up.
There should never be a document named something\_FINAL because you always end up with FINAL\_FINAL\_FINAL etc.
:)Because of the way SolidWorks looks for and uses referenced files, having the version number as part of the filename is BAD.
How on earth do you update your assemblies when youve got to replace all the files you modify all the time?
Either they dont get updated or you spend a lot of time with SW Explorer's Replace command.If you ever move to a PDM system, and you should- even the free Workgroup one that's part of SW Office Pro, it will treat foo\_v01.sldprt and foo\_v02.sldprt as different files altogether, not versions.
In Workgroup PDM, the version is a custom property; in Enterprise PDM its in sql.
We have "job folders" similar to yours, with Docs (MS office, etc), Drawings (all CAD), Photos, Correspondence, etc.
We moved the solidworks stuff out to workgroup pdm.
It also takes care of write access issues when a few people are working on the same project- people can take "ownership" of a file they would like to change and check in a new version.Give it a shot- you can set up a workgroup vault on your local machine and play with the settings.
After working with it for a while youll wonder how you did without it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287047</id>
	<title>Don't use anything from NextPage either...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244636760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh man NextPage NXT sucks. Just stay away from it. Anything is better. It's consulting ware. You pay a ton of money for a mediocre product with mediocre support, and then a ton more money to pay their experts to set it all up and integrate it for you since it's so poorly documented.</p><p>Their IIS plug-in also allowed unauthenticated users to shut down the NXT web site with a simple GET request. We accidentally shut down their support web site one Friday afternoon after trying a command that was listed in their own documentation on their support site from a web browser with no special access.</p><p>Thank God I got a better job, so I don't ever have to work with that piece of crap ever again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh man NextPage NXT sucks .
Just stay away from it .
Anything is better .
It 's consulting ware .
You pay a ton of money for a mediocre product with mediocre support , and then a ton more money to pay their experts to set it all up and integrate it for you since it 's so poorly documented.Their IIS plug-in also allowed unauthenticated users to shut down the NXT web site with a simple GET request .
We accidentally shut down their support web site one Friday afternoon after trying a command that was listed in their own documentation on their support site from a web browser with no special access.Thank God I got a better job , so I do n't ever have to work with that piece of crap ever again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh man NextPage NXT sucks.
Just stay away from it.
Anything is better.
It's consulting ware.
You pay a ton of money for a mediocre product with mediocre support, and then a ton more money to pay their experts to set it all up and integrate it for you since it's so poorly documented.Their IIS plug-in also allowed unauthenticated users to shut down the NXT web site with a simple GET request.
We accidentally shut down their support web site one Friday afternoon after trying a command that was listed in their own documentation on their support site from a web browser with no special access.Thank God I got a better job, so I don't ever have to work with that piece of crap ever again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286879</id>
	<title>Re:Google to the rescue?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244635800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're going to redo it and you want a real document management system at a reasonable price, get Xerox <a href="http://docushare.xerox.com/" title="xerox.com" rel="nofollow">Docushare</a> [xerox.com].  Free download to try it out... And you'll never want anything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're going to redo it and you want a real document management system at a reasonable price , get Xerox Docushare [ xerox.com ] .
Free download to try it out... And you 'll never want anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're going to redo it and you want a real document management system at a reasonable price, get Xerox Docushare [xerox.com].
Free download to try it out... And you'll never want anything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28294295</id>
	<title>Re:Google to the rescue?</title>
	<author>stelling</author>
	<datestamp>1244737140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google search appliance could be the way to go on a small scale, and most likely temporary, solution.</p><p>The real questions are:</p><p>How valuable are your documents ?<br>How much money do they generate ?<br>What is the cost for not being able to locate a document ?<br>What kind of processes are these documents used in ?<br>How distributed is your user base ?<br>How close to the your business core are these documents.</p><p>You certainly need a document management solution (or ECM), which one will depend basically on the answers to the previous questions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google search appliance could be the way to go on a small scale , and most likely temporary , solution.The real questions are : How valuable are your documents ? How much money do they generate ? What is the cost for not being able to locate a document ? What kind of processes are these documents used in ? How distributed is your user base ? How close to the your business core are these documents.You certainly need a document management solution ( or ECM ) , which one will depend basically on the answers to the previous questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google search appliance could be the way to go on a small scale, and most likely temporary, solution.The real questions are:How valuable are your documents ?How much money do they generate ?What is the cost for not being able to locate a document ?What kind of processes are these documents used in ?How distributed is your user base ?How close to the your business core are these documents.You certainly need a document management solution (or ECM), which one will depend basically on the answers to the previous questions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287653</id>
	<title>Two words...</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1244641140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Google appliance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google appliance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Google appliance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289363</id>
	<title>ECM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244655960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>KnowledgeTree or Alfresco. Open source and no charge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>KnowledgeTree or Alfresco .
Open source and no charge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>KnowledgeTree or Alfresco.
Open source and no charge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288707</id>
	<title>Query Based Document Management Software</title>
	<author>indytx</author>
	<datestamp>1244649420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My last company relied on a program called isys to index and search documents and email.  You don't have to worry about what a document is named, just the type of content you're looking for.  This solution can save a lot of time, especially if your users are good and phrasing queries.  On the other hand, I did not have to maintain it, so I have no idea how much administration time was devoted to keeping it working.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My last company relied on a program called isys to index and search documents and email .
You do n't have to worry about what a document is named , just the type of content you 're looking for .
This solution can save a lot of time , especially if your users are good and phrasing queries .
On the other hand , I did not have to maintain it , so I have no idea how much administration time was devoted to keeping it working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My last company relied on a program called isys to index and search documents and email.
You don't have to worry about what a document is named, just the type of content you're looking for.
This solution can save a lot of time, especially if your users are good and phrasing queries.
On the other hand, I did not have to maintain it, so I have no idea how much administration time was devoted to keeping it working.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28301975</id>
	<title>Lotus Notes</title>
	<author>dogugotw</author>
	<datestamp>1244721600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't want to go the google appliance route, Notes works great, is cheap to set up, and simple to administer.<br>One db.<br>One form with a couple of fields<br>One view<br>Render to the web<br>Write a simple agent that crawls your directory structure, snags the files and attach each one to a Notes doc.  Stuff in the directory/file name if you care.<br>Let Notes build an index (and it can index damn near any file).<br>Poof - done.<br>Remove user's rights to leave crap in file directories and make 'em put new stuff into Notes and you have something that's maintainable without a ton of work.<br>If you then want to get fancy, you can make users enter some meta data before they can save new docs.<br>You can set up access control, etc, etc, etc.</p><p>Documentum costs about a quarter mil just to get it in the door and a boat load of cash to make it useful. (at least it did in the late '90s).<br>Notes server license a couple grand.  If you need user authentication, it's around $150/client (ask your rep for prices because IBM is working tons of price schemes).  If you don't need authentication, all you need is the server license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't want to go the google appliance route , Notes works great , is cheap to set up , and simple to administer.One db.One form with a couple of fieldsOne viewRender to the webWrite a simple agent that crawls your directory structure , snags the files and attach each one to a Notes doc .
Stuff in the directory/file name if you care.Let Notes build an index ( and it can index damn near any file ) .Poof - done.Remove user 's rights to leave crap in file directories and make 'em put new stuff into Notes and you have something that 's maintainable without a ton of work.If you then want to get fancy , you can make users enter some meta data before they can save new docs.You can set up access control , etc , etc , etc.Documentum costs about a quarter mil just to get it in the door and a boat load of cash to make it useful .
( at least it did in the late '90s ) .Notes server license a couple grand .
If you need user authentication , it 's around $ 150/client ( ask your rep for prices because IBM is working tons of price schemes ) .
If you do n't need authentication , all you need is the server license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't want to go the google appliance route, Notes works great, is cheap to set up, and simple to administer.One db.One form with a couple of fieldsOne viewRender to the webWrite a simple agent that crawls your directory structure, snags the files and attach each one to a Notes doc.
Stuff in the directory/file name if you care.Let Notes build an index (and it can index damn near any file).Poof - done.Remove user's rights to leave crap in file directories and make 'em put new stuff into Notes and you have something that's maintainable without a ton of work.If you then want to get fancy, you can make users enter some meta data before they can save new docs.You can set up access control, etc, etc, etc.Documentum costs about a quarter mil just to get it in the door and a boat load of cash to make it useful.
(at least it did in the late '90s).Notes server license a couple grand.
If you need user authentication, it's around $150/client (ask your rep for prices because IBM is working tons of price schemes).
If you don't need authentication, all you need is the server license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285763</id>
	<title>Simple answer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hire human beings to sift through it and label each file with a numbering/labeling system devised by your engineers. The human mind is a relatively inexpensive and already well designed piece of machinery. A few dozen of them given enough time can work through those hundreds of thousands of document and get them sorted correctly. The problem you have, is that you have unsorted, improperly labeled material. It is cheaper to hire sufficiently (or even insufficiently) evolved groups of people than to invent a machine capable of doing so. And, with the economy the way it is, you'll be doing everyone a favor by giving them years of employment. When the Manhattan project needed to create a large excess of fissile material for the war with Japan, and with all the men away at war, they hired dozens of women to sit at machines; turning knobs, checking meter levels, verifying output. The scientists themselves did not even need to be there, they designed a process and the women were trained in it and followed it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hire human beings to sift through it and label each file with a numbering/labeling system devised by your engineers .
The human mind is a relatively inexpensive and already well designed piece of machinery .
A few dozen of them given enough time can work through those hundreds of thousands of document and get them sorted correctly .
The problem you have , is that you have unsorted , improperly labeled material .
It is cheaper to hire sufficiently ( or even insufficiently ) evolved groups of people than to invent a machine capable of doing so .
And , with the economy the way it is , you 'll be doing everyone a favor by giving them years of employment .
When the Manhattan project needed to create a large excess of fissile material for the war with Japan , and with all the men away at war , they hired dozens of women to sit at machines ; turning knobs , checking meter levels , verifying output .
The scientists themselves did not even need to be there , they designed a process and the women were trained in it and followed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hire human beings to sift through it and label each file with a numbering/labeling system devised by your engineers.
The human mind is a relatively inexpensive and already well designed piece of machinery.
A few dozen of them given enough time can work through those hundreds of thousands of document and get them sorted correctly.
The problem you have, is that you have unsorted, improperly labeled material.
It is cheaper to hire sufficiently (or even insufficiently) evolved groups of people than to invent a machine capable of doing so.
And, with the economy the way it is, you'll be doing everyone a favor by giving them years of employment.
When the Manhattan project needed to create a large excess of fissile material for the war with Japan, and with all the men away at war, they hired dozens of women to sit at machines; turning knobs, checking meter levels, verifying output.
The scientists themselves did not even need to be there, they designed a process and the women were trained in it and followed it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286271</id>
	<title>Good luck</title>
	<author>kilodelta</author>
	<datestamp>1244632380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I worked for the state Attorney General's office as I.T. Director a request came into I.T. that immediately gave me an upset stomach. The request was for all documents on the server that contained the word "lead" as in the chemical element Pb. The issue was that the word lead and the element share the same spelling.
<br> <br>
I kicked in and wrote an app that generated a web list on the fly and had clickable links so the documents could be examined and then marked as part of discovery.
<br> <br>I also brought in three Xerox 490's. Those were the hardware part of the document management system. I don't know if they ever got the servers for it but at least they had the gear. In the meantime I suggested using meta-data in filenames.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I worked for the state Attorney General 's office as I.T .
Director a request came into I.T .
that immediately gave me an upset stomach .
The request was for all documents on the server that contained the word " lead " as in the chemical element Pb .
The issue was that the word lead and the element share the same spelling .
I kicked in and wrote an app that generated a web list on the fly and had clickable links so the documents could be examined and then marked as part of discovery .
I also brought in three Xerox 490 's .
Those were the hardware part of the document management system .
I do n't know if they ever got the servers for it but at least they had the gear .
In the meantime I suggested using meta-data in filenames .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I worked for the state Attorney General's office as I.T.
Director a request came into I.T.
that immediately gave me an upset stomach.
The request was for all documents on the server that contained the word "lead" as in the chemical element Pb.
The issue was that the word lead and the element share the same spelling.
I kicked in and wrote an app that generated a web list on the fly and had clickable links so the documents could be examined and then marked as part of discovery.
I also brought in three Xerox 490's.
Those were the hardware part of the document management system.
I don't know if they ever got the servers for it but at least they had the gear.
In the meantime I suggested using meta-data in filenames.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288177</id>
	<title>Re:Google to the rescue?</title>
	<author>shri</author>
	<datestamp>1244644980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>May I also suggest <a href="http://omnifind.ibm.yahoo.net/productinfo.php" title="yahoo.net">Yahoo/IBM's OmniFind</a> [yahoo.net] as a free as beer alternative?</htmltext>
<tokenext>May I also suggest Yahoo/IBM 's OmniFind [ yahoo.net ] as a free as beer alternative ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May I also suggest Yahoo/IBM's OmniFind [yahoo.net] as a free as beer alternative?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287639</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>slater86</author>
	<datestamp>1244641080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>we use sharepoint (the free version) at the moment, does an excellent job when you have no budget. but if you have the time, skills or budget (the usual "pick any two" rule) there are better CMS stuff available.
<br> <br>
even works well with ldap/samba domain controllers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>we use sharepoint ( the free version ) at the moment , does an excellent job when you have no budget .
but if you have the time , skills or budget ( the usual " pick any two " rule ) there are better CMS stuff available .
even works well with ldap/samba domain controllers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we use sharepoint (the free version) at the moment, does an excellent job when you have no budget.
but if you have the time, skills or budget (the usual "pick any two" rule) there are better CMS stuff available.
even works well with ldap/samba domain controllers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288463</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>ewhac</author>
	<datestamp>1244647140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...give SharePoint a shot...</p></div></blockquote><p>Bah.  SharePoint is what you end up with when you don't know about <a href="http://qtask.com/" title="qtask.com">Qtask</a> [qtask.com].

</p><p>Schwab</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...give SharePoint a shot...Bah .
SharePoint is what you end up with when you do n't know about Qtask [ qtask.com ] .
Schwab</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...give SharePoint a shot...Bah.
SharePoint is what you end up with when you don't know about Qtask [qtask.com].
Schwab
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287925</id>
	<title>Go for the little guy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244643060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A company with the guts to challenge the big guys, IBM and EMC, and usually wins:  http://onbase.com</p><p>Besides, their office has two slides.  One for speed (metal) and one twisty (plastic, like a playground!).</p><p>They also have a hosted version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A company with the guts to challenge the big guys , IBM and EMC , and usually wins : http : //onbase.comBesides , their office has two slides .
One for speed ( metal ) and one twisty ( plastic , like a playground !
) .They also have a hosted version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A company with the guts to challenge the big guys, IBM and EMC, and usually wins:  http://onbase.comBesides, their office has two slides.
One for speed (metal) and one twisty (plastic, like a playground!
).They also have a hosted version.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28291263</id>
	<title>Convert your docs to MediaWiki</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244723160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*not knowing what format your docs are written in*<br>- Write a script(s) (Pyhton, Perl,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... whatever) which goes through docs, converts them and uploads them to a MediaWiki installation (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API).<br>- Categorize your docs based upon the directory names.<br>- Learn your people how to write their documents in MediaWiki syntax.<br>- Everything is web based, which makes less overhead on the network for remote offices, simplifies management.<br>- MediaWiki is a controlled document system, with detailed history.<br>- MediaWiki is FREE and has WikiPedia (and more) as a reference.<br>- Check http://www.smetj.net/wiki/wikiinject for some ideas<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>- http://openwetware.org/wiki/Converting\_documents\_to\_mediawiki\_markup</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* not knowing what format your docs are written in * - Write a script ( s ) ( Pyhton , Perl , ... whatever ) which goes through docs , converts them and uploads them to a MediaWiki installation ( http : //www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API ) .- Categorize your docs based upon the directory names.- Learn your people how to write their documents in MediaWiki syntax.- Everything is web based , which makes less overhead on the network for remote offices , simplifies management.- MediaWiki is a controlled document system , with detailed history.- MediaWiki is FREE and has WikiPedia ( and more ) as a reference.- Check http : //www.smetj.net/wiki/wikiinject for some ideas ...- http : //openwetware.org/wiki/Converting \ _documents \ _to \ _mediawiki \ _markup</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*not knowing what format your docs are written in*- Write a script(s) (Pyhton, Perl, ... whatever) which goes through docs, converts them and uploads them to a MediaWiki installation (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API).- Categorize your docs based upon the directory names.- Learn your people how to write their documents in MediaWiki syntax.- Everything is web based, which makes less overhead on the network for remote offices, simplifies management.- MediaWiki is a controlled document system, with detailed history.- MediaWiki is FREE and has WikiPedia (and more) as a reference.- Check http://www.smetj.net/wiki/wikiinject for some ideas ...- http://openwetware.org/wiki/Converting\_documents\_to\_mediawiki\_markup</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286279</id>
	<title>New Hire.</title>
	<author>deimtee</author>
	<datestamp>1244632380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hire a real librarian, it's what they do. <br>On the plus side, you also get to hire a librarian. nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hire a real librarian , it 's what they do .
On the plus side , you also get to hire a librarian .
nudge , nudge , wink , wink , say no more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hire a real librarian, it's what they do.
On the plus side, you also get to hire a librarian.
nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288031</id>
	<title>Re:Answered your own question</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1244643780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Put the temporary area on a "RAMDISK" and schedule a nightly reboot.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Put the temporary area on a " RAMDISK " and schedule a nightly reboot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Put the temporary area on a "RAMDISK" and schedule a nightly reboot.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288355</id>
	<title>an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244646120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depending on what you need to store this might or might not be of help. Here we I work we use <a href="http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/" title="atlassian.com" rel="nofollow">Atlassian's confluence</a> [atlassian.com]. We've created spaces for each team and then have pages for things like 'manuals', 'system documentation or whatever and attach the files to those. The attachment can then be linked to the page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depending on what you need to store this might or might not be of help .
Here we I work we use Atlassian 's confluence [ atlassian.com ] .
We 've created spaces for each team and then have pages for things like 'manuals ' , 'system documentation or whatever and attach the files to those .
The attachment can then be linked to the page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depending on what you need to store this might or might not be of help.
Here we I work we use Atlassian's confluence [atlassian.com].
We've created spaces for each team and then have pages for things like 'manuals', 'system documentation or whatever and attach the files to those.
The attachment can then be linked to the page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285983</id>
	<title>Riverbed Steelhead mobiles</title>
	<author>DecepticonEazyE</author>
	<datestamp>1244631000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Put Steelhead mobile on all the clients.  Document transfer over the VPN will GREATLY improve.  Since it's mostly text/pictures, there will be so much duplicate data that doesn't need to be transferred over the wire multiple times, the round trip time will decrease so much they'll forget they're on a VPN.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Put Steelhead mobile on all the clients .
Document transfer over the VPN will GREATLY improve .
Since it 's mostly text/pictures , there will be so much duplicate data that does n't need to be transferred over the wire multiple times , the round trip time will decrease so much they 'll forget they 're on a VPN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put Steelhead mobile on all the clients.
Document transfer over the VPN will GREATLY improve.
Since it's mostly text/pictures, there will be so much duplicate data that doesn't need to be transferred over the wire multiple times, the round trip time will decrease so much they'll forget they're on a VPN.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285829</id>
	<title>Get yourself a good management system.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While this may be an odd suggestion, here's two things:<br>1) Get yourself a damn good document or content management system. Get it set up on the baddest machines you can afford.Overshoot the capability you need, so that you have room to grow.<br>2) Get a librarian to look at the kinds of documents you create, and develop a system to catalog documents while maintaining reasonable standards for file names. As the super simplest system, maybe document names that indicate (at a minimum) what project or what overhead department they belong to, a broad category of subject matter, and if it's versioned, a version number.</p><p>I tried to bludgeon a small company I worked for (around 40 engineers, one overworked Q&amp;A person, and one system administrator) into moving towards a storage system for word documents that was not "Create a new folder for each version of the document set, place them all in the right folder, and if you don't Ray will eat your head." We wound up using (of all things) Perforce SCM to house fifty thousand word documents, and were starting on putting actual code revisions for automated test sets into the system when our avionics testing focus became a serious liability, and overhead workers were drastically cut. (Why have one Q&amp;A guy and one system admin guy? We can get an intern to do BOTH!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While this may be an odd suggestion , here 's two things : 1 ) Get yourself a damn good document or content management system .
Get it set up on the baddest machines you can afford.Overshoot the capability you need , so that you have room to grow.2 ) Get a librarian to look at the kinds of documents you create , and develop a system to catalog documents while maintaining reasonable standards for file names .
As the super simplest system , maybe document names that indicate ( at a minimum ) what project or what overhead department they belong to , a broad category of subject matter , and if it 's versioned , a version number.I tried to bludgeon a small company I worked for ( around 40 engineers , one overworked Q&amp;A person , and one system administrator ) into moving towards a storage system for word documents that was not " Create a new folder for each version of the document set , place them all in the right folder , and if you do n't Ray will eat your head .
" We wound up using ( of all things ) Perforce SCM to house fifty thousand word documents , and were starting on putting actual code revisions for automated test sets into the system when our avionics testing focus became a serious liability , and overhead workers were drastically cut .
( Why have one Q&amp;A guy and one system admin guy ?
We can get an intern to do BOTH !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this may be an odd suggestion, here's two things:1) Get yourself a damn good document or content management system.
Get it set up on the baddest machines you can afford.Overshoot the capability you need, so that you have room to grow.2) Get a librarian to look at the kinds of documents you create, and develop a system to catalog documents while maintaining reasonable standards for file names.
As the super simplest system, maybe document names that indicate (at a minimum) what project or what overhead department they belong to, a broad category of subject matter, and if it's versioned, a version number.I tried to bludgeon a small company I worked for (around 40 engineers, one overworked Q&amp;A person, and one system administrator) into moving towards a storage system for word documents that was not "Create a new folder for each version of the document set, place them all in the right folder, and if you don't Ray will eat your head.
" We wound up using (of all things) Perforce SCM to house fifty thousand word documents, and were starting on putting actual code revisions for automated test sets into the system when our avionics testing focus became a serious liability, and overhead workers were drastically cut.
(Why have one Q&amp;A guy and one system admin guy?
We can get an intern to do BOTH!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287829</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244642340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to boost M$ any more than we already have, but I once built a searchable text system using Microsoft's Index Server. The system isn't in use any longer, but before the project was abandoned and servers reformatted, the system had about 500 million documents (+/- 5 terabytes of data) and could return search results of just about any complexity in about one second on very modest hardware (lots of ram for the indexes, but not big on processor looking back).</p><p>We also had a custom document filter (filters are used to tell index server how to index file formats it doesn't already know about, and to get custom properties that can be cached--  ci has an api of sorts, but it's not very well documented) for non-ms office files, but the thing comes ready to go for txt, html, and all the office formats.</p><p>Plus, it's not like you're locked into anything. It's just an indexer. Build a web interface to it and you're good to go. Who cares what they are named or what folders they are in if users can find them after waiting 1 second for search results?</p><p>PS: we looked at google's search appliance at the time and it was huge monies. and they didn't offer anything (at that time) that would do 500 million documents. (yeah, I know. I said the same thing. "REALLY? Doesn't seem like GOOGLE would have any trouble with a measly half a billion files!!!!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to boost M $ any more than we already have , but I once built a searchable text system using Microsoft 's Index Server .
The system is n't in use any longer , but before the project was abandoned and servers reformatted , the system had about 500 million documents ( + /- 5 terabytes of data ) and could return search results of just about any complexity in about one second on very modest hardware ( lots of ram for the indexes , but not big on processor looking back ) .We also had a custom document filter ( filters are used to tell index server how to index file formats it does n't already know about , and to get custom properties that can be cached-- ci has an api of sorts , but it 's not very well documented ) for non-ms office files , but the thing comes ready to go for txt , html , and all the office formats.Plus , it 's not like you 're locked into anything .
It 's just an indexer .
Build a web interface to it and you 're good to go .
Who cares what they are named or what folders they are in if users can find them after waiting 1 second for search results ? PS : we looked at google 's search appliance at the time and it was huge monies .
and they did n't offer anything ( at that time ) that would do 500 million documents .
( yeah , I know .
I said the same thing .
" REALLY ? Does n't seem like GOOGLE would have any trouble with a measly half a billion files ! ! ! !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to boost M$ any more than we already have, but I once built a searchable text system using Microsoft's Index Server.
The system isn't in use any longer, but before the project was abandoned and servers reformatted, the system had about 500 million documents (+/- 5 terabytes of data) and could return search results of just about any complexity in about one second on very modest hardware (lots of ram for the indexes, but not big on processor looking back).We also had a custom document filter (filters are used to tell index server how to index file formats it doesn't already know about, and to get custom properties that can be cached--  ci has an api of sorts, but it's not very well documented) for non-ms office files, but the thing comes ready to go for txt, html, and all the office formats.Plus, it's not like you're locked into anything.
It's just an indexer.
Build a web interface to it and you're good to go.
Who cares what they are named or what folders they are in if users can find them after waiting 1 second for search results?PS: we looked at google's search appliance at the time and it was huge monies.
and they didn't offer anything (at that time) that would do 500 million documents.
(yeah, I know.
I said the same thing.
"REALLY? Doesn't seem like GOOGLE would have any trouble with a measly half a billion files!!!!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285755</id>
	<title>ECM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look into Enterprise Content Management solutions, there are many.  Many of them are very expensive but depending on your needs it may be worth it.  Several examples are EMC Documentum, Alfresco, and even Sharepoint to an extent.  Alfresco is open source so that may be a good place to start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look into Enterprise Content Management solutions , there are many .
Many of them are very expensive but depending on your needs it may be worth it .
Several examples are EMC Documentum , Alfresco , and even Sharepoint to an extent .
Alfresco is open source so that may be a good place to start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look into Enterprise Content Management solutions, there are many.
Many of them are very expensive but depending on your needs it may be worth it.
Several examples are EMC Documentum, Alfresco, and even Sharepoint to an extent.
Alfresco is open source so that may be a good place to start.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285699</id>
	<title>Start with....</title>
	<author>s0litaire</author>
	<datestamp>1244630100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...Setting up a standard naming convention and make sure bosses and managers enforce it. It won't help older files but will stop it getting worse!<p>
Then if you can be bothered, you can start going through older files and updating the naming conventions or entering them into the Document management system of you choice...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Setting up a standard naming convention and make sure bosses and managers enforce it .
It wo n't help older files but will stop it getting worse !
Then if you can be bothered , you can start going through older files and updating the naming conventions or entering them into the Document management system of you choice.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Setting up a standard naming convention and make sure bosses and managers enforce it.
It won't help older files but will stop it getting worse!
Then if you can be bothered, you can start going through older files and updating the naming conventions or entering them into the Document management system of you choice...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28292257</id>
	<title>Content Addressable Storage</title>
	<author>hicksw</author>
	<datestamp>1244729820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't try to use the file name or directory structure.  This is difficult to adapt or relocate as the namespace becomes distorted from its original content over time.<br> <br>
Try this instead:<br> <br>
Assign arbitrary file names. <br>
Adopt a directory structure derivable from those names, if you must.<br>
Build a database of several tables to link keywords, project names, authors, etc, to the arbitrary file names.<br>
Award small prizes for verified corrections to the database.
<br> <br>

See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-addressable\_storage" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-addressable\_storage</a> [wikipedia.org] for more information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't try to use the file name or directory structure .
This is difficult to adapt or relocate as the namespace becomes distorted from its original content over time .
Try this instead : Assign arbitrary file names .
Adopt a directory structure derivable from those names , if you must .
Build a database of several tables to link keywords , project names , authors , etc , to the arbitrary file names .
Award small prizes for verified corrections to the database .
See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-addressable \ _storage [ wikipedia.org ] for more information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't try to use the file name or directory structure.
This is difficult to adapt or relocate as the namespace becomes distorted from its original content over time.
Try this instead: 
Assign arbitrary file names.
Adopt a directory structure derivable from those names, if you must.
Build a database of several tables to link keywords, project names, authors, etc, to the arbitrary file names.
Award small prizes for verified corrections to the database.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-addressable\_storage [wikipedia.org] for more information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286377</id>
	<title>Re:Alfresco or SharePoint</title>
	<author>Kadin2048</author>
	<datestamp>1244632980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a personal bias, but I think IBM's <a href="http://www-01.ibm.com/software/data/content-management/filenet-p8-platform/" title="ibm.com" rel="nofollow">FileNet</a> [ibm.com] would solve this quite neatly.  I've done implementations of it that are pretty much exactly what the OP describes.</p><p>Customer has a share that's gotten totally out of control, just stuffed full of files.  They want to make them available across multiple offices, generally without getting into complex VPN crap, and also want to simplify management, add more security / compartmentalization, or integrate it with corporate SSI.  All doable.  Runs on your choice of platforms, too.  (Linux, Unix/AIX, Windows all OK as servers.)</p><p>There are even tools that basically take a share drive and walk the directory structure, importing documents at extremely high volume and using the folder structure to categorize and tag the documents within FileNet.  It's quite slick and can either be used as a one-shot migration from a traditional fileserver to FileNet, or as an ongoing thing (take all files in a particular directory or set of directories and commit them).</p><p>Once you have the documents into FileNet you can access them over a web interface or via various desktop clients, and there is a nice API for integrating it with custom in-house applications if that's a requirement.  Also, IBM makes some add-ons for Word and Excel (and maybe PowerPoint) that allow you to work directly with items stored in a FileNet repository.  Plus, if down the road you want to get into "workflow" (basically building your document management system around your business process), that can be easily bolted on.</p><p>Email is in profile if you want specific case studies or whitepapers, or if you want me to put you in touch with people who do these sorts of things regularly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a personal bias , but I think IBM 's FileNet [ ibm.com ] would solve this quite neatly .
I 've done implementations of it that are pretty much exactly what the OP describes.Customer has a share that 's gotten totally out of control , just stuffed full of files .
They want to make them available across multiple offices , generally without getting into complex VPN crap , and also want to simplify management , add more security / compartmentalization , or integrate it with corporate SSI .
All doable .
Runs on your choice of platforms , too .
( Linux , Unix/AIX , Windows all OK as servers .
) There are even tools that basically take a share drive and walk the directory structure , importing documents at extremely high volume and using the folder structure to categorize and tag the documents within FileNet .
It 's quite slick and can either be used as a one-shot migration from a traditional fileserver to FileNet , or as an ongoing thing ( take all files in a particular directory or set of directories and commit them ) .Once you have the documents into FileNet you can access them over a web interface or via various desktop clients , and there is a nice API for integrating it with custom in-house applications if that 's a requirement .
Also , IBM makes some add-ons for Word and Excel ( and maybe PowerPoint ) that allow you to work directly with items stored in a FileNet repository .
Plus , if down the road you want to get into " workflow " ( basically building your document management system around your business process ) , that can be easily bolted on.Email is in profile if you want specific case studies or whitepapers , or if you want me to put you in touch with people who do these sorts of things regularly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a personal bias, but I think IBM's FileNet [ibm.com] would solve this quite neatly.
I've done implementations of it that are pretty much exactly what the OP describes.Customer has a share that's gotten totally out of control, just stuffed full of files.
They want to make them available across multiple offices, generally without getting into complex VPN crap, and also want to simplify management, add more security / compartmentalization, or integrate it with corporate SSI.
All doable.
Runs on your choice of platforms, too.
(Linux, Unix/AIX, Windows all OK as servers.
)There are even tools that basically take a share drive and walk the directory structure, importing documents at extremely high volume and using the folder structure to categorize and tag the documents within FileNet.
It's quite slick and can either be used as a one-shot migration from a traditional fileserver to FileNet, or as an ongoing thing (take all files in a particular directory or set of directories and commit them).Once you have the documents into FileNet you can access them over a web interface or via various desktop clients, and there is a nice API for integrating it with custom in-house applications if that's a requirement.
Also, IBM makes some add-ons for Word and Excel (and maybe PowerPoint) that allow you to work directly with items stored in a FileNet repository.
Plus, if down the road you want to get into "workflow" (basically building your document management system around your business process), that can be easily bolted on.Email is in profile if you want specific case studies or whitepapers, or if you want me to put you in touch with people who do these sorts of things regularly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288773</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>Seraphim\_72</author>
	<datestamp>1244650080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>It uses the exact same folder/file paradigm</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>

Actually it doesn't. All the SP gurus tell you to never make folders, everything is a list of files. There is a shift of how things are done in SP, it really is a hurdle. Alfresco does the same sort of thing. Plus the files are data aware. SharePoint actually has a few good ideas, but things like Wave will eat it alive eventually.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It uses the exact same folder/file paradigm Actually it does n't .
All the SP gurus tell you to never make folders , everything is a list of files .
There is a shift of how things are done in SP , it really is a hurdle .
Alfresco does the same sort of thing .
Plus the files are data aware .
SharePoint actually has a few good ideas , but things like Wave will eat it alive eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It uses the exact same folder/file paradigm 

Actually it doesn't.
All the SP gurus tell you to never make folders, everything is a list of files.
There is a shift of how things are done in SP, it really is a hurdle.
Alfresco does the same sort of thing.
Plus the files are data aware.
SharePoint actually has a few good ideas, but things like Wave will eat it alive eventually.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287613</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244640900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SharePoint can work for small to moderate collaborative endeavors.  If this is your goal, you'll find it a good fit.  On the other hand, if you're working a lot with non-office documents, very large files sizes on average (1GB+), large numbers of files at a time, you're going to find SharePoint will get unwieldy and backups will get to be more painful.  A package like Documentum is designed for meta data and storing big piles of documents and managing them.  Meta data requires the user base to be diligent, so organizational readiness is key.  If the user base won't maintain it and it isn't mandated (e.g., a regulatory body or compliance to a corporate policy that is policed) you're going to have issues with finding and retrieving documents.  All that said, I'm not clear how well any of the above will play into the VPN situation for your remote sites.  I suspect you'll want to look into your WAN bandwidth utilization.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SharePoint can work for small to moderate collaborative endeavors .
If this is your goal , you 'll find it a good fit .
On the other hand , if you 're working a lot with non-office documents , very large files sizes on average ( 1GB + ) , large numbers of files at a time , you 're going to find SharePoint will get unwieldy and backups will get to be more painful .
A package like Documentum is designed for meta data and storing big piles of documents and managing them .
Meta data requires the user base to be diligent , so organizational readiness is key .
If the user base wo n't maintain it and it is n't mandated ( e.g. , a regulatory body or compliance to a corporate policy that is policed ) you 're going to have issues with finding and retrieving documents .
All that said , I 'm not clear how well any of the above will play into the VPN situation for your remote sites .
I suspect you 'll want to look into your WAN bandwidth utilization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SharePoint can work for small to moderate collaborative endeavors.
If this is your goal, you'll find it a good fit.
On the other hand, if you're working a lot with non-office documents, very large files sizes on average (1GB+), large numbers of files at a time, you're going to find SharePoint will get unwieldy and backups will get to be more painful.
A package like Documentum is designed for meta data and storing big piles of documents and managing them.
Meta data requires the user base to be diligent, so organizational readiness is key.
If the user base won't maintain it and it isn't mandated (e.g., a regulatory body or compliance to a corporate policy that is policed) you're going to have issues with finding and retrieving documents.
All that said, I'm not clear how well any of the above will play into the VPN situation for your remote sites.
I suspect you'll want to look into your WAN bandwidth utilization.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285975</id>
	<title>Mindoka Technology Corp.</title>
	<author>Alethes</author>
	<datestamp>1244631000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mindoka  (http://www.mindoka.com) has a document management product that is designed to solve the problem that you have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mindoka ( http : //www.mindoka.com ) has a document management product that is designed to solve the problem that you have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mindoka  (http://www.mindoka.com) has a document management product that is designed to solve the problem that you have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28294403</id>
	<title>Universal online document viewer</title>
	<author>crisgrey</author>
	<datestamp>1244737500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To help you with the challenge of sharing documents with your remote sites, there are universal web-based document viewers on the market that you can use to embed document viewing capability into your intranet or web site. The documents can be of different file formats too, they don't all need to be PDF. Some options use Adobe Flash, so a plug-in needs to be downloaded by the end user, but other options do not. Adeptol and Vuzit are two examples, but if you search for "online document viewer" in Google you'll find a number of options.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To help you with the challenge of sharing documents with your remote sites , there are universal web-based document viewers on the market that you can use to embed document viewing capability into your intranet or web site .
The documents can be of different file formats too , they do n't all need to be PDF .
Some options use Adobe Flash , so a plug-in needs to be downloaded by the end user , but other options do not .
Adeptol and Vuzit are two examples , but if you search for " online document viewer " in Google you 'll find a number of options .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To help you with the challenge of sharing documents with your remote sites, there are universal web-based document viewers on the market that you can use to embed document viewing capability into your intranet or web site.
The documents can be of different file formats too, they don't all need to be PDF.
Some options use Adobe Flash, so a plug-in needs to be downloaded by the end user, but other options do not.
Adeptol and Vuzit are two examples, but if you search for "online document viewer" in Google you'll find a number of options.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287553</id>
	<title>Oracle UCM</title>
	<author>Everything Else Was</author>
	<datestamp>1244640480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've worked with <a href="http://www.oracle.com/products/middleware/content-management/index.html" title="oracle.com" rel="nofollow">Oracle UCM</a> [oracle.com] (formerly Stellent) for a few years now and would thoroughly recommend it. It's scalable into (at least) the 10s of billions of documents. A single repository for Doc Management, Records, Web Content Management, workflow, imaging. It comes with security, library services, metadata, and search OOTB. Using the WCM, you can make your documents available on an intranet, extranet or internet site, according to specified security policies.
<br> <br>
BTW... offices on satellites... that's so cool!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've worked with Oracle UCM [ oracle.com ] ( formerly Stellent ) for a few years now and would thoroughly recommend it .
It 's scalable into ( at least ) the 10s of billions of documents .
A single repository for Doc Management , Records , Web Content Management , workflow , imaging .
It comes with security , library services , metadata , and search OOTB .
Using the WCM , you can make your documents available on an intranet , extranet or internet site , according to specified security policies .
BTW... offices on satellites... that 's so cool !
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've worked with Oracle UCM [oracle.com] (formerly Stellent) for a few years now and would thoroughly recommend it.
It's scalable into (at least) the 10s of billions of documents.
A single repository for Doc Management, Records, Web Content Management, workflow, imaging.
It comes with security, library services, metadata, and search OOTB.
Using the WCM, you can make your documents available on an intranet, extranet or internet site, according to specified security policies.
BTW... offices on satellites... that's so cool!
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286369</id>
	<title>Re:WebDav</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244632980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Or you could embrace your dark-side and use Microsoft SharePoint (plus, with all the Microsoft bugs you'd have a job for life until your employeer goes bust). If you are a friend to your company you won't do this, plus your outfit has engineers and the good ones can spot trash solutions.</i></p><p>I've used Sharepoint and it doesn't have "all the Microsoft bugs" you are talking about.. sure there are bugs, but what software doesn't have bugs? Even if this guy uses another enterprise or open source piece of software, you think that software won't have bugs? And if it's open source I'm <b>sure</b> he will have time to sort through the code and fix those bugs. If he's a friend to his company, then he will find the right tool for the job. If that tool is Sharepoint, then so be it. And Sharepoint as a trash solution?  Please. If those engineers really feel that way, then they have an incredible bias against Microsoft or are an "open source only" advocate. If they are that gung ho about what software to use and ignore the idea of using a tool that works, then they should GTFO.  You will find many people (including a few around these parts) recommend Sharepoint as a effective document management solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you could embrace your dark-side and use Microsoft SharePoint ( plus , with all the Microsoft bugs you 'd have a job for life until your employeer goes bust ) .
If you are a friend to your company you wo n't do this , plus your outfit has engineers and the good ones can spot trash solutions.I 've used Sharepoint and it does n't have " all the Microsoft bugs " you are talking about.. sure there are bugs , but what software does n't have bugs ?
Even if this guy uses another enterprise or open source piece of software , you think that software wo n't have bugs ?
And if it 's open source I 'm sure he will have time to sort through the code and fix those bugs .
If he 's a friend to his company , then he will find the right tool for the job .
If that tool is Sharepoint , then so be it .
And Sharepoint as a trash solution ?
Please. If those engineers really feel that way , then they have an incredible bias against Microsoft or are an " open source only " advocate .
If they are that gung ho about what software to use and ignore the idea of using a tool that works , then they should GTFO .
You will find many people ( including a few around these parts ) recommend Sharepoint as a effective document management solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you could embrace your dark-side and use Microsoft SharePoint (plus, with all the Microsoft bugs you'd have a job for life until your employeer goes bust).
If you are a friend to your company you won't do this, plus your outfit has engineers and the good ones can spot trash solutions.I've used Sharepoint and it doesn't have "all the Microsoft bugs" you are talking about.. sure there are bugs, but what software doesn't have bugs?
Even if this guy uses another enterprise or open source piece of software, you think that software won't have bugs?
And if it's open source I'm sure he will have time to sort through the code and fix those bugs.
If he's a friend to his company, then he will find the right tool for the job.
If that tool is Sharepoint, then so be it.
And Sharepoint as a trash solution?
Please. If those engineers really feel that way, then they have an incredible bias against Microsoft or are an "open source only" advocate.
If they are that gung ho about what software to use and ignore the idea of using a tool that works, then they should GTFO.
You will find many people (including a few around these parts) recommend Sharepoint as a effective document management solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286065</id>
	<title>Organize....</title>
	<author>Fallen Kell</author>
	<datestamp>1244631300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As may have been pointed out, organizing the files is really the best way. Develop a strict schema for naming conventions as well as a hierarchical directory structure for maintaining and organizing. Something like:
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/projectname/projectpart/data (contains the final draft of any document)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/projectname/projectpart/working (contains files that people are modifying so that they can be merged/checked in to the data dir)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/projectname/projecttpart/misc (contains misc. notes or files that need to be filed with the project)
<br> <br>
The "projectpart" dirs are really just logical groupings of data/files for the project. Say you are designing a plane, well, break it up into relevant systems, like electronics, power plant, structure, etc., and each of those are the "projectpart" directories. The "projectname" is simply the overall project itself, be it the name of the plane, maybe the name of the contract, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As may have been pointed out , organizing the files is really the best way .
Develop a strict schema for naming conventions as well as a hierarchical directory structure for maintaining and organizing .
Something like : /projectname/projectpart/data ( contains the final draft of any document ) /projectname/projectpart/working ( contains files that people are modifying so that they can be merged/checked in to the data dir ) /projectname/projecttpart/misc ( contains misc .
notes or files that need to be filed with the project ) The " projectpart " dirs are really just logical groupings of data/files for the project .
Say you are designing a plane , well , break it up into relevant systems , like electronics , power plant , structure , etc. , and each of those are the " projectpart " directories .
The " projectname " is simply the overall project itself , be it the name of the plane , maybe the name of the contract , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As may have been pointed out, organizing the files is really the best way.
Develop a strict schema for naming conventions as well as a hierarchical directory structure for maintaining and organizing.
Something like:
  /projectname/projectpart/data (contains the final draft of any document) /projectname/projectpart/working (contains files that people are modifying so that they can be merged/checked in to the data dir) /projectname/projecttpart/misc (contains misc.
notes or files that need to be filed with the project)
 
The "projectpart" dirs are really just logical groupings of data/files for the project.
Say you are designing a plane, well, break it up into relevant systems, like electronics, power plant, structure, etc., and each of those are the "projectpart" directories.
The "projectname" is simply the overall project itself, be it the name of the plane, maybe the name of the contract, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286091</id>
	<title>Who else read this and thought...</title>
	<author>tlambert</author>
	<datestamp>1244631360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who else read this and thought... working in a satellite office for an aerospace company would involve a lot of cool travel perks?</p><p>-- Terry</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who else read this and thought... working in a satellite office for an aerospace company would involve a lot of cool travel perks ? -- Terry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who else read this and thought... working in a satellite office for an aerospace company would involve a lot of cool travel perks?-- Terry</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287103</id>
	<title>Why can't you use a database?</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1244637120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm pretty sure there are databases that can store and serve up documents based on criteria.  Couldn't you set up a centralized web server with an SQL backend that hosts those files for you?  You would be able to then keep track of who is using which document and when, and regulate who can do what with different documents as well.  As a bonus you should be able to ditch SMB while you're at it and move to a more robust OS for your critical files.  Centralizing those documents would also make it dramatically easier to back them up at regular intervals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure there are databases that can store and serve up documents based on criteria .
Could n't you set up a centralized web server with an SQL backend that hosts those files for you ?
You would be able to then keep track of who is using which document and when , and regulate who can do what with different documents as well .
As a bonus you should be able to ditch SMB while you 're at it and move to a more robust OS for your critical files .
Centralizing those documents would also make it dramatically easier to back them up at regular intervals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure there are databases that can store and serve up documents based on criteria.
Couldn't you set up a centralized web server with an SQL backend that hosts those files for you?
You would be able to then keep track of who is using which document and when, and regulate who can do what with different documents as well.
As a bonus you should be able to ditch SMB while you're at it and move to a more robust OS for your critical files.
Centralizing those documents would also make it dramatically easier to back them up at regular intervals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285861</id>
	<title>Lots of ECM solutions out there...</title>
	<author>jwilkins13</author>
	<datestamp>1244630580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, with any number of ECM solutions. At the simplest end many of them simply enforce naming conventions; at the more robust end, they support many different file types for viewing, indexing, etc. and can also provide rich metadata on a document-by-document basis. Some of them have been named in the comments, including but certainly not limited to SharePoint 2007, Cygnet, Documentum, Open Text, FileNet, etc.

Any system worth looking at has a web-based interface, at least for searching, and many of them offer for more meaningful interaction as well. Alfresco, Hyland, and SpringCM all have web-based ECM solutions and more comprehensive web-based offerings are available all the time.

Oh - and if you're aerospace there are a number of regulatory requirements for information management you'll need to comply with, which does complicate the situation but spending the ducats for software and/or consulting help is probably cheaper than whatever your litigation and regulatory audit support processes cost today.

Hope this helps,

Jesse Wilkins
ECM and other stuff consultant
jwilkins13 at gmail dot com</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , with any number of ECM solutions .
At the simplest end many of them simply enforce naming conventions ; at the more robust end , they support many different file types for viewing , indexing , etc .
and can also provide rich metadata on a document-by-document basis .
Some of them have been named in the comments , including but certainly not limited to SharePoint 2007 , Cygnet , Documentum , Open Text , FileNet , etc .
Any system worth looking at has a web-based interface , at least for searching , and many of them offer for more meaningful interaction as well .
Alfresco , Hyland , and SpringCM all have web-based ECM solutions and more comprehensive web-based offerings are available all the time .
Oh - and if you 're aerospace there are a number of regulatory requirements for information management you 'll need to comply with , which does complicate the situation but spending the ducats for software and/or consulting help is probably cheaper than whatever your litigation and regulatory audit support processes cost today .
Hope this helps , Jesse Wilkins ECM and other stuff consultant jwilkins13 at gmail dot com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, with any number of ECM solutions.
At the simplest end many of them simply enforce naming conventions; at the more robust end, they support many different file types for viewing, indexing, etc.
and can also provide rich metadata on a document-by-document basis.
Some of them have been named in the comments, including but certainly not limited to SharePoint 2007, Cygnet, Documentum, Open Text, FileNet, etc.
Any system worth looking at has a web-based interface, at least for searching, and many of them offer for more meaningful interaction as well.
Alfresco, Hyland, and SpringCM all have web-based ECM solutions and more comprehensive web-based offerings are available all the time.
Oh - and if you're aerospace there are a number of regulatory requirements for information management you'll need to comply with, which does complicate the situation but spending the ducats for software and/or consulting help is probably cheaper than whatever your litigation and regulatory audit support processes cost today.
Hope this helps,

Jesse Wilkins
ECM and other stuff consultant
jwilkins13 at gmail dot com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288749</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1244649840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sharepoint is wonderful.  I used to get all my cross-company plans, developments and projects from it.  I could enter a couple of searches and have everything: executive travel. department budgets, next years product strategies, customer and vendor lists, even skunkworks projects with circuit layouts and logic diagrams.  Definitely a huge career pusher once the gig was over.
</p><p>And I was just a temp clerk in the mailroom.  I wonder what people with privileges had access to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sharepoint is wonderful .
I used to get all my cross-company plans , developments and projects from it .
I could enter a couple of searches and have everything : executive travel .
department budgets , next years product strategies , customer and vendor lists , even skunkworks projects with circuit layouts and logic diagrams .
Definitely a huge career pusher once the gig was over .
And I was just a temp clerk in the mailroom .
I wonder what people with privileges had access to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sharepoint is wonderful.
I used to get all my cross-company plans, developments and projects from it.
I could enter a couple of searches and have everything: executive travel.
department budgets, next years product strategies, customer and vendor lists, even skunkworks projects with circuit layouts and logic diagrams.
Definitely a huge career pusher once the gig was over.
And I was just a temp clerk in the mailroom.
I wonder what people with privileges had access to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28290835</id>
	<title>Re:Start with....</title>
	<author>Javaman59</author>
	<datestamp>1244716200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>a standard naming convention and make sure bosses and managers enforce it.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Won't work. Never has, never will. People won't comply. Bosses won't enforce. Some will make a good faith effort for a while. More will make a good faith effort, but get it wrong. Some will ignore it. Threatening memos will be issued from managers. Then it will emerge that one of the memos came from a manager who doesn't use the conventions himself (because he's "too busy"). The people who invested (wasted) time in understanding the system, and using it, will see that the they're efforts are futile because of the amount of non-compliance, and give up. Then the company will be left with a minor portion of the files in this system. 3 years later people will wonder "what the hell" these bizaar files are, along with the 17 other naming conventions they see around (and peoples who's names are on those files will look silly), and then someone will say "we need a standard naming convention and make sure bosses and managers enforce it."</p><p>I'm reminded of one of Joel's chestnuts - Whenever you have two incompatible systems, and introduce a third system to unify them, all you end up with is three incomptible systems.  (or words to that effect).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a standard naming convention and make sure bosses and managers enforce it .
Wo n't work .
Never has , never will .
People wo n't comply .
Bosses wo n't enforce .
Some will make a good faith effort for a while .
More will make a good faith effort , but get it wrong .
Some will ignore it .
Threatening memos will be issued from managers .
Then it will emerge that one of the memos came from a manager who does n't use the conventions himself ( because he 's " too busy " ) .
The people who invested ( wasted ) time in understanding the system , and using it , will see that the they 're efforts are futile because of the amount of non-compliance , and give up .
Then the company will be left with a minor portion of the files in this system .
3 years later people will wonder " what the hell " these bizaar files are , along with the 17 other naming conventions they see around ( and peoples who 's names are on those files will look silly ) , and then someone will say " we need a standard naming convention and make sure bosses and managers enforce it .
" I 'm reminded of one of Joel 's chestnuts - Whenever you have two incompatible systems , and introduce a third system to unify them , all you end up with is three incomptible systems .
( or words to that effect ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a standard naming convention and make sure bosses and managers enforce it.
Won't work.
Never has, never will.
People won't comply.
Bosses won't enforce.
Some will make a good faith effort for a while.
More will make a good faith effort, but get it wrong.
Some will ignore it.
Threatening memos will be issued from managers.
Then it will emerge that one of the memos came from a manager who doesn't use the conventions himself (because he's "too busy").
The people who invested (wasted) time in understanding the system, and using it, will see that the they're efforts are futile because of the amount of non-compliance, and give up.
Then the company will be left with a minor portion of the files in this system.
3 years later people will wonder "what the hell" these bizaar files are, along with the 17 other naming conventions they see around (and peoples who's names are on those files will look silly), and then someone will say "we need a standard naming convention and make sure bosses and managers enforce it.
"I'm reminded of one of Joel's chestnuts - Whenever you have two incompatible systems, and introduce a third system to unify them, all you end up with is three incomptible systems.
(or words to that effect).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286335</id>
	<title>ls | grep</title>
	<author>zindorsky</author>
	<datestamp>1244632680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ls | grep</p><p>amiright?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ls | grepamiright ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ls | grepamiright?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288679</id>
	<title>Document Locator from ColumbiaSoft</title>
	<author>ASBands</author>
	<datestamp>1244649120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The company I work for uses a system called <a href="http://www.documentlocator.com/" title="documentlocator.com">Document Locator</a> [documentlocator.com].  It is a Windows-shell integrated document management system.  Basically, if you took Subversion and gave yourself extremely fine-grained control of repositories, folders and the like.  It scales decently, too -- we have millions of documents spread across 25 major repositories, many of which include AutoCAD, Bentley Microstation, Smartplant 3D and other sizable files.  The system is also fairly extensible, as we've built quite a few internal applications off of the DL system and there are plenty of third-party plug-ins available (a notable one being Brava, an application that allows adding QC and other markup to repository files).  And if you don't want to be constrained to Windows, there is a web client available, which works decently.  While it is not without its problems, the overall experience has been pretty good.</p><p>Full disclosure: My company is ColunbiaSoft's largest customer and, as such, we know a good deal of the development team.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The company I work for uses a system called Document Locator [ documentlocator.com ] .
It is a Windows-shell integrated document management system .
Basically , if you took Subversion and gave yourself extremely fine-grained control of repositories , folders and the like .
It scales decently , too -- we have millions of documents spread across 25 major repositories , many of which include AutoCAD , Bentley Microstation , Smartplant 3D and other sizable files .
The system is also fairly extensible , as we 've built quite a few internal applications off of the DL system and there are plenty of third-party plug-ins available ( a notable one being Brava , an application that allows adding QC and other markup to repository files ) .
And if you do n't want to be constrained to Windows , there is a web client available , which works decently .
While it is not without its problems , the overall experience has been pretty good.Full disclosure : My company is ColunbiaSoft 's largest customer and , as such , we know a good deal of the development team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The company I work for uses a system called Document Locator [documentlocator.com].
It is a Windows-shell integrated document management system.
Basically, if you took Subversion and gave yourself extremely fine-grained control of repositories, folders and the like.
It scales decently, too -- we have millions of documents spread across 25 major repositories, many of which include AutoCAD, Bentley Microstation, Smartplant 3D and other sizable files.
The system is also fairly extensible, as we've built quite a few internal applications off of the DL system and there are plenty of third-party plug-ins available (a notable one being Brava, an application that allows adding QC and other markup to repository files).
And if you don't want to be constrained to Windows, there is a web client available, which works decently.
While it is not without its problems, the overall experience has been pretty good.Full disclosure: My company is ColunbiaSoft's largest customer and, as such, we know a good deal of the development team.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286429</id>
	<title>Re:Google to the rescue?</title>
	<author>gwait</author>
	<datestamp>1244633220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree - although you might want to eventually implement a systematic method of naming/storing your documents.<br>The google appliance (or some other reasonably fast "WAN" search tool) would let you find files in the current rats nest "as is", making it easier to organize them to the new "standard".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree - although you might want to eventually implement a systematic method of naming/storing your documents.The google appliance ( or some other reasonably fast " WAN " search tool ) would let you find files in the current rats nest " as is " , making it easier to organize them to the new " standard " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree - although you might want to eventually implement a systematic method of naming/storing your documents.The google appliance (or some other reasonably fast "WAN" search tool) would let you find files in the current rats nest "as is", making it easier to organize them to the new "standard".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28294207</id>
	<title>Content Management</title>
	<author>wuglas</author>
	<datestamp>1244736720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you need is a content management system.  Such systems do more than store and find documents.  They allow true document taxonomy management, records management for compliance and control, and many other features.<br>I personally specialize in IBM Content Manager.  It's great for companies like yours where you have distributed offices.  You can keep your metadata at one central location but have the documents themselves stored at your remote locations, all while maintaining centralized control.<br>Doug Hansknecht<br>Certified IT Architect<br>DougFromOhio@us.ibm.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you need is a content management system .
Such systems do more than store and find documents .
They allow true document taxonomy management , records management for compliance and control , and many other features.I personally specialize in IBM Content Manager .
It 's great for companies like yours where you have distributed offices .
You can keep your metadata at one central location but have the documents themselves stored at your remote locations , all while maintaining centralized control.Doug HansknechtCertified IT ArchitectDougFromOhio @ us.ibm.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you need is a content management system.
Such systems do more than store and find documents.
They allow true document taxonomy management, records management for compliance and control, and many other features.I personally specialize in IBM Content Manager.
It's great for companies like yours where you have distributed offices.
You can keep your metadata at one central location but have the documents themselves stored at your remote locations, all while maintaining centralized control.Doug HansknechtCertified IT ArchitectDougFromOhio@us.ibm.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285927</id>
	<title>Who tagged this delete?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's such a silly solution to the problem.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Shift+Delete</p></div><p>works so much better!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's such a silly solution to the problem.Shift + Deleteworks so much better !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's such a silly solution to the problem.Shift+Deleteworks so much better!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285785</id>
	<title>Enterprise solution:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't know enough about your company, budget, policies, real requirements.  But throwing Documentum at it is probably good.  Either that or something simple like Sharepoint.  Both provide rich web based access and documentum can support long term archiving and version control.  I have no idea how google appliances would do jack for access.  However, if you need search there are google or cheaper/better commercial solutions from companies that actually do it right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't know enough about your company , budget , policies , real requirements .
But throwing Documentum at it is probably good .
Either that or something simple like Sharepoint .
Both provide rich web based access and documentum can support long term archiving and version control .
I have no idea how google appliances would do jack for access .
However , if you need search there are google or cheaper/better commercial solutions from companies that actually do it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't know enough about your company, budget, policies, real requirements.
But throwing Documentum at it is probably good.
Either that or something simple like Sharepoint.
Both provide rich web based access and documentum can support long term archiving and version control.
I have no idea how google appliances would do jack for access.
However, if you need search there are google or cheaper/better commercial solutions from companies that actually do it right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28299217</id>
	<title>Knowledge Tree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244710980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use Knowledge Tree. Download a free version from http://www.knowledgetree.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use Knowledge Tree .
Download a free version from http : //www.knowledgetree.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use Knowledge Tree.
Download a free version from http://www.knowledgetree.com/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285749</id>
	<title>Documentum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>use EMC document solution,
where you have all documents i central database with metadata that can describe content.
And can be accessed thru cached server from different sites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>use EMC document solution , where you have all documents i central database with metadata that can describe content .
And can be accessed thru cached server from different sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>use EMC document solution,
where you have all documents i central database with metadata that can describe content.
And can be accessed thru cached server from different sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287309</id>
	<title>Filing Cabinet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244638740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suggest you put documents in filing cabinets, lots of filing cabinets. You Need a good indexing systems, but the documents will be pretty safe then.</p><p>Pretty easy really, people have been using this technology for hundreds of years, its pretty stable, you dont have to worry about magnetic fields wiping your drives, or dyes leaking out the edges of your dvd/cd's, or file corruption, or power blackouts, or haxors getting in, or people deleting random stuff by accident.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suggest you put documents in filing cabinets , lots of filing cabinets .
You Need a good indexing systems , but the documents will be pretty safe then.Pretty easy really , people have been using this technology for hundreds of years , its pretty stable , you dont have to worry about magnetic fields wiping your drives , or dyes leaking out the edges of your dvd/cd 's , or file corruption , or power blackouts , or haxors getting in , or people deleting random stuff by accident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suggest you put documents in filing cabinets, lots of filing cabinets.
You Need a good indexing systems, but the documents will be pretty safe then.Pretty easy really, people have been using this technology for hundreds of years, its pretty stable, you dont have to worry about magnetic fields wiping your drives, or dyes leaking out the edges of your dvd/cd's, or file corruption, or power blackouts, or haxors getting in, or people deleting random stuff by accident.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286525</id>
	<title>ProjectWise</title>
	<author>adamziegler</author>
	<datestamp>1244633820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We use a Bentley product called ProjectWise.  It is a document management system with file attribution among other things.  It is primary useful for Bentley's line of products, but we have used it as an archival system as well as a working documents that are non-Bentley specific. No... I do not work for Bentley, but my job heavily uses their products.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We use a Bentley product called ProjectWise .
It is a document management system with file attribution among other things .
It is primary useful for Bentley 's line of products , but we have used it as an archival system as well as a working documents that are non-Bentley specific .
No... I do not work for Bentley , but my job heavily uses their products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We use a Bentley product called ProjectWise.
It is a document management system with file attribution among other things.
It is primary useful for Bentley's line of products, but we have used it as an archival system as well as a working documents that are non-Bentley specific.
No... I do not work for Bentley, but my job heavily uses their products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287049</id>
	<title>Re:Alfresco or SharePoint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244636760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd suggest Livelink by OpenText. I know the Airforce uses it since our Livelink guy worked on their systems before coming to work for us, they obviously work with large volumes of aerospace related documents! =) That probably means OpenText can find consultants who have already designed and worked with an aerospace taxonomy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd suggest Livelink by OpenText .
I know the Airforce uses it since our Livelink guy worked on their systems before coming to work for us , they obviously work with large volumes of aerospace related documents !
= ) That probably means OpenText can find consultants who have already designed and worked with an aerospace taxonomy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd suggest Livelink by OpenText.
I know the Airforce uses it since our Livelink guy worked on their systems before coming to work for us, they obviously work with large volumes of aerospace related documents!
=) That probably means OpenText can find consultants who have already designed and worked with an aerospace taxonomy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28290901</id>
	<title>200,000 Resumes</title>
	<author>Gob Gob</author>
	<datestamp>1244717340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've written a recruitment app that has 200k resumes and other types of folder indexed in text.</p><p>The files live on the disk in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/TYPE/YEAR/MONTH and are converted to text and inserted into MySQL database.</p><p>They can be searched on name, date record id, free text, type, etc, etc; or just browsed to on disk.</p><p>The front end is PHP on MySQL.</p><p>These were imported from a files on disk approach.</p><p>It can scale with master slave replication, etc. Just keeping it simple helps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've written a recruitment app that has 200k resumes and other types of folder indexed in text.The files live on the disk in /TYPE/YEAR/MONTH and are converted to text and inserted into MySQL database.They can be searched on name , date record id , free text , type , etc , etc ; or just browsed to on disk.The front end is PHP on MySQL.These were imported from a files on disk approach.It can scale with master slave replication , etc .
Just keeping it simple helps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've written a recruitment app that has 200k resumes and other types of folder indexed in text.The files live on the disk in /TYPE/YEAR/MONTH and are converted to text and inserted into MySQL database.They can be searched on name, date record id, free text, type, etc, etc; or just browsed to on disk.The front end is PHP on MySQL.These were imported from a files on disk approach.It can scale with master slave replication, etc.
Just keeping it simple helps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285707</id>
	<title>Use a cataloging system</title>
	<author>vondo</author>
	<datestamp>1244630100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I happen to have written one:</p><p><a href="http://sourceforge.net/projects/docdb-v/" title="sourceforge.net">http://sourceforge.net/projects/docdb-v/</a> [sourceforge.net]</p><p>could be what you are looking for. Of course, it'll take effort to catalog the documents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I happen to have written one : http : //sourceforge.net/projects/docdb-v/ [ sourceforge.net ] could be what you are looking for .
Of course , it 'll take effort to catalog the documents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I happen to have written one:http://sourceforge.net/projects/docdb-v/ [sourceforge.net]could be what you are looking for.
Of course, it'll take effort to catalog the documents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286581</id>
	<title>Start with the WAN</title>
	<author>PatJensen</author>
	<datestamp>1244634120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take a look at network-based WAN acceleration products that will significantly reduce the overhead of SMB/CIFS traffic.  This will make it easier to index, cache frequently used documents locally and improve your WAN utilization company wide.  It will even cache directory lookups and they will "feel" instant to the end user.<p>

A good example is Cisco WAAS, a cool video showing how it works is here: <a href="http://www.cisco.com/cdc\_content\_elements/flash/ans/index.html" title="cisco.com">http://www.cisco.com/cdc\_content\_elements/flash/ans/index.html</a> [cisco.com] </p><p>

See here for data sheets and specs: <a href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps5680/Products\_Sub\_Category\_Home.html" title="cisco.com">http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps5680/Products\_Sub\_Category\_Home.html</a> [cisco.com] </p><p>

Cisco's solution is inexpensive and you can use your existing router investment to do all the heavy lifting. </p><p>

Pat</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at network-based WAN acceleration products that will significantly reduce the overhead of SMB/CIFS traffic .
This will make it easier to index , cache frequently used documents locally and improve your WAN utilization company wide .
It will even cache directory lookups and they will " feel " instant to the end user .
A good example is Cisco WAAS , a cool video showing how it works is here : http : //www.cisco.com/cdc \ _content \ _elements/flash/ans/index.html [ cisco.com ] See here for data sheets and specs : http : //www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps5680/Products \ _Sub \ _Category \ _Home.html [ cisco.com ] Cisco 's solution is inexpensive and you can use your existing router investment to do all the heavy lifting .
Pat</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at network-based WAN acceleration products that will significantly reduce the overhead of SMB/CIFS traffic.
This will make it easier to index, cache frequently used documents locally and improve your WAN utilization company wide.
It will even cache directory lookups and they will "feel" instant to the end user.
A good example is Cisco WAAS, a cool video showing how it works is here: http://www.cisco.com/cdc\_content\_elements/flash/ans/index.html [cisco.com] 

See here for data sheets and specs: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps5680/Products\_Sub\_Category\_Home.html [cisco.com] 

Cisco's solution is inexpensive and you can use your existing router investment to do all the heavy lifting.
Pat</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287007</id>
	<title>Re:it's all about the index</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244636520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very true. I'd take a look at <a href="http://www.dspace.org/" title="dspace.org">DSpace</a> [dspace.org] or <a href="http://openlibrary.org/" title="openlibrary.org">Open Library</a> [openlibrary.org] for examples of software designed to handle gigantic numbers of documents and maintain sensible indexes for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very true .
I 'd take a look at DSpace [ dspace.org ] or Open Library [ openlibrary.org ] for examples of software designed to handle gigantic numbers of documents and maintain sensible indexes for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very true.
I'd take a look at DSpace [dspace.org] or Open Library [openlibrary.org] for examples of software designed to handle gigantic numbers of documents and maintain sensible indexes for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285969</id>
	<title>Sounds easy enough...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you need an easy way to find things, your looking at a good searching algorithm.  In order to use a good searching algorithm I'd have to recommend the bubblesort first.  That way you don't need to worry about the data for a good millenium or two!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you need an easy way to find things , your looking at a good searching algorithm .
In order to use a good searching algorithm I 'd have to recommend the bubblesort first .
That way you do n't need to worry about the data for a good millenium or two !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you need an easy way to find things, your looking at a good searching algorithm.
In order to use a good searching algorithm I'd have to recommend the bubblesort first.
That way you don't need to worry about the data for a good millenium or two!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28292817</id>
	<title>Hire a librarian!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244731680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hire a librarian.  Seriously.  Get someone in there with a degree in library science, and let them do their thing.</p><p>Organizing a large collection of related documents would be right up their alley...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hire a librarian .
Seriously. Get someone in there with a degree in library science , and let them do their thing.Organizing a large collection of related documents would be right up their alley.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hire a librarian.
Seriously.  Get someone in there with a degree in library science, and let them do their thing.Organizing a large collection of related documents would be right up their alley...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285635</id>
	<title>Google Appliance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244629860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google them? <a href="http://www.google.com/enterprise/search/gsa.html" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/enterprise/search/gsa.html</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google them ?
http : //www.google.com/enterprise/search/gsa.html [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google them?
http://www.google.com/enterprise/search/gsa.html [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288415</id>
	<title>Manage Docs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244646720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could use Documentum.  Not inexpensive.  It can manage anywhere from 1,000s to 1,000,000,000 docs.  Support for remote cache servers is available via several methods.  Security, H/A, D/R, distributed docbases, and much more can address a very wide range of problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could use Documentum .
Not inexpensive .
It can manage anywhere from 1,000s to 1,000,000,000 docs .
Support for remote cache servers is available via several methods .
Security , H/A , D/R , distributed docbases , and much more can address a very wide range of problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could use Documentum.
Not inexpensive.
It can manage anywhere from 1,000s to 1,000,000,000 docs.
Support for remote cache servers is available via several methods.
Security, H/A, D/R, distributed docbases, and much more can address a very wide range of problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286193</id>
	<title>Re:Answered your own question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244631900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, some people mentioned Google appliances, which I suppose is a sort-of solution.  I've never used one of those internally, but I wouldn't trust that to be the end-all solution to your organizational problems.  What if there's a file that Google can't read or gather good metadata for?  What if you're searching for common terms, and the file you're looking for is on the 75th page?  What if you're not remembering the correct search parameters and so your file just isn't turning up in your searches?
</p><p>There's really no substitute yet for real organization and discipline.  The first thing you should do is define your needs/parameters.  Does everyone from every site need read access to all files?  Do they all need write access?  Most likely, the answer to both of these questions is "no", so narrow it down to specifically "who needs access to what".  That will help you figure out the rest of these things.  Also ask, who needs to be able to find which documents under which circumstances?  What information will they have?  You're going to want to use those pieces of information in your organization so that people can intuitively find the files that they need, without necessarily needing to see everyone else's files.
</p><p>Come up with a hierarchical organization for your files, requesting user input if appropriate.  Then create a directory structure that matches it.  Make sure you've communicated the organization clearly to your users, and try to get them to use it.
</p><p>If necessary, use directory permissions to try to restrict writing files to appropriate places.  For example, if you break down the file structure by particular engineering groups or departments, then only provide write access to members of that group or department.  Designate the head of that department as the person responsible for organization within that folder.  If need be, restrict write access in a particular folder to only one person, and make that person responsible for checking files in and maintaining the organization for the group or department.  Do the same sort of control with individual satellite sites, if appropriate.
</p><p>Be a little tiny bit of a control freak, but you might want to give people a particular folder share where they can transfer files in a more freeform manner in a pinch.  Someone might want to share one particular file, back something up for a minute, or whatever, but make it clear that this share is completely insecure and temporary.  Let people know that everyone has access to that share, anyone can delete any file, you won't be backing it up, and in fact you might be clearing it out (deleting it) on a regular basis.  Make a habit of deleting it all on a regular basis, or people will start dumping everything there to sidestep the organization.  To be careful, you might want to actually move everything into a non-shared folder for a week, and then deleting it later, so if someone shows up and says, "Oh crap! You deleted business-critical information!" you can sigh, and say, "I'll see what I can do, but you really shouldn't store business-critical data there."
</p><p>So, to go back and summarize: Come up with an organization, stick to it, enforce it, and retrain your users to use it properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , some people mentioned Google appliances , which I suppose is a sort-of solution .
I 've never used one of those internally , but I would n't trust that to be the end-all solution to your organizational problems .
What if there 's a file that Google ca n't read or gather good metadata for ?
What if you 're searching for common terms , and the file you 're looking for is on the 75th page ?
What if you 're not remembering the correct search parameters and so your file just is n't turning up in your searches ?
There 's really no substitute yet for real organization and discipline .
The first thing you should do is define your needs/parameters .
Does everyone from every site need read access to all files ?
Do they all need write access ?
Most likely , the answer to both of these questions is " no " , so narrow it down to specifically " who needs access to what " .
That will help you figure out the rest of these things .
Also ask , who needs to be able to find which documents under which circumstances ?
What information will they have ?
You 're going to want to use those pieces of information in your organization so that people can intuitively find the files that they need , without necessarily needing to see everyone else 's files .
Come up with a hierarchical organization for your files , requesting user input if appropriate .
Then create a directory structure that matches it .
Make sure you 've communicated the organization clearly to your users , and try to get them to use it .
If necessary , use directory permissions to try to restrict writing files to appropriate places .
For example , if you break down the file structure by particular engineering groups or departments , then only provide write access to members of that group or department .
Designate the head of that department as the person responsible for organization within that folder .
If need be , restrict write access in a particular folder to only one person , and make that person responsible for checking files in and maintaining the organization for the group or department .
Do the same sort of control with individual satellite sites , if appropriate .
Be a little tiny bit of a control freak , but you might want to give people a particular folder share where they can transfer files in a more freeform manner in a pinch .
Someone might want to share one particular file , back something up for a minute , or whatever , but make it clear that this share is completely insecure and temporary .
Let people know that everyone has access to that share , anyone can delete any file , you wo n't be backing it up , and in fact you might be clearing it out ( deleting it ) on a regular basis .
Make a habit of deleting it all on a regular basis , or people will start dumping everything there to sidestep the organization .
To be careful , you might want to actually move everything into a non-shared folder for a week , and then deleting it later , so if someone shows up and says , " Oh crap !
You deleted business-critical information !
" you can sigh , and say , " I 'll see what I can do , but you really should n't store business-critical data there .
" So , to go back and summarize : Come up with an organization , stick to it , enforce it , and retrain your users to use it properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, some people mentioned Google appliances, which I suppose is a sort-of solution.
I've never used one of those internally, but I wouldn't trust that to be the end-all solution to your organizational problems.
What if there's a file that Google can't read or gather good metadata for?
What if you're searching for common terms, and the file you're looking for is on the 75th page?
What if you're not remembering the correct search parameters and so your file just isn't turning up in your searches?
There's really no substitute yet for real organization and discipline.
The first thing you should do is define your needs/parameters.
Does everyone from every site need read access to all files?
Do they all need write access?
Most likely, the answer to both of these questions is "no", so narrow it down to specifically "who needs access to what".
That will help you figure out the rest of these things.
Also ask, who needs to be able to find which documents under which circumstances?
What information will they have?
You're going to want to use those pieces of information in your organization so that people can intuitively find the files that they need, without necessarily needing to see everyone else's files.
Come up with a hierarchical organization for your files, requesting user input if appropriate.
Then create a directory structure that matches it.
Make sure you've communicated the organization clearly to your users, and try to get them to use it.
If necessary, use directory permissions to try to restrict writing files to appropriate places.
For example, if you break down the file structure by particular engineering groups or departments, then only provide write access to members of that group or department.
Designate the head of that department as the person responsible for organization within that folder.
If need be, restrict write access in a particular folder to only one person, and make that person responsible for checking files in and maintaining the organization for the group or department.
Do the same sort of control with individual satellite sites, if appropriate.
Be a little tiny bit of a control freak, but you might want to give people a particular folder share where they can transfer files in a more freeform manner in a pinch.
Someone might want to share one particular file, back something up for a minute, or whatever, but make it clear that this share is completely insecure and temporary.
Let people know that everyone has access to that share, anyone can delete any file, you won't be backing it up, and in fact you might be clearing it out (deleting it) on a regular basis.
Make a habit of deleting it all on a regular basis, or people will start dumping everything there to sidestep the organization.
To be careful, you might want to actually move everything into a non-shared folder for a week, and then deleting it later, so if someone shows up and says, "Oh crap!
You deleted business-critical information!
" you can sigh, and say, "I'll see what I can do, but you really shouldn't store business-critical data there.
"
So, to go back and summarize: Come up with an organization, stick to it, enforce it, and retrain your users to use it properly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285901</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1244630760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"We're a mid-sized aerospace company with... satellite offices.</i> Wow... apparently the state-of-the-art in aerospace is a lot more advanced than I thought! What kind of rocket do you use for commuting to those satellite offices?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We 're a mid-sized aerospace company with... satellite offices .
Wow... apparently the state-of-the-art in aerospace is a lot more advanced than I thought !
What kind of rocket do you use for commuting to those satellite offices ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We're a mid-sized aerospace company with... satellite offices.
Wow... apparently the state-of-the-art in aerospace is a lot more advanced than I thought!
What kind of rocket do you use for commuting to those satellite offices?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28304437</id>
	<title>Office Evolve</title>
	<author>DocumentGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1244742120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Consider Office Evolve by <a href="http://www.documatics.com/" title="documatics.com" rel="nofollow">Documatics</a> [documatics.com]. They've a system that will; organise your directories in projects, provides fully indexed searching of all your documents, caters for document generation from templates, has a complete history of all your documents, integrates with Outlook and manages workflow. It's in use at GE. We love it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider Office Evolve by Documatics [ documatics.com ] .
They 've a system that will ; organise your directories in projects , provides fully indexed searching of all your documents , caters for document generation from templates , has a complete history of all your documents , integrates with Outlook and manages workflow .
It 's in use at GE .
We love it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider Office Evolve by Documatics [documatics.com].
They've a system that will; organise your directories in projects, provides fully indexed searching of all your documents, caters for document generation from templates, has a complete history of all your documents, integrates with Outlook and manages workflow.
It's in use at GE.
We love it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28291969</id>
	<title>Alfresco seems right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244728680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for what you need I suggest Alfresco. It has indexing, and publishing options (CIFS, WebDAV, etc). And it is extensible.</p><p>We are implementing it right now in our company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for what you need I suggest Alfresco .
It has indexing , and publishing options ( CIFS , WebDAV , etc ) .
And it is extensible.We are implementing it right now in our company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for what you need I suggest Alfresco.
It has indexing, and publishing options (CIFS, WebDAV, etc).
And it is extensible.We are implementing it right now in our company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285723</id>
	<title>Sharepoint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>invest in sans and get a sharepoint server.  you dont need sans for sharepoint though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>invest in sans and get a sharepoint server .
you dont need sans for sharepoint though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>invest in sans and get a sharepoint server.
you dont need sans for sharepoint though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285771</id>
	<title>Document management software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most print companies like Xerox have their own proprietary <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document\_management" title="wikipedia.org">Document management</a> [wikipedia.org] tools you can buy, and a bunch of CRM and ERP solutions (like OpenERP - it's free AND Open Source) provide some good simple document searching and indexing tools.</p><p>Really it comes down to how complex you want searching to be? Are there specific keys in the document you could index by? Do you require the full-text search capabilities of a Google search appliance?</p><p>A really good solution I've come across for some clients in Edmonton is Called <a href="http://www.traceapps.com/app/metal.aspx" title="traceapps.com">MetalTrace</a> [traceapps.com] by Trace Applications. Don't let the name fool you about the specificity, software like this can Scan, Index, and even read barcodes on all sorts of documents then let people search for it via the web. Their "killer-app" has multiple user-defined document types with multiple search fields, combined with some back-filing (digital and scanning) really saved the day.</p><p>Do your research though on "Document managment" and see what product best fits your needs. It's a really well established field so reinventing the wheel is a little masochistic... not that there's anything wrong with that.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>-Matt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most print companies like Xerox have their own proprietary Document management [ wikipedia.org ] tools you can buy , and a bunch of CRM and ERP solutions ( like OpenERP - it 's free AND Open Source ) provide some good simple document searching and indexing tools.Really it comes down to how complex you want searching to be ?
Are there specific keys in the document you could index by ?
Do you require the full-text search capabilities of a Google search appliance ? A really good solution I 've come across for some clients in Edmonton is Called MetalTrace [ traceapps.com ] by Trace Applications .
Do n't let the name fool you about the specificity , software like this can Scan , Index , and even read barcodes on all sorts of documents then let people search for it via the web .
Their " killer-app " has multiple user-defined document types with multiple search fields , combined with some back-filing ( digital and scanning ) really saved the day.Do your research though on " Document managment " and see what product best fits your needs .
It 's a really well established field so reinventing the wheel is a little masochistic... not that there 's anything wrong with that .
; ) -Matt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most print companies like Xerox have their own proprietary Document management [wikipedia.org] tools you can buy, and a bunch of CRM and ERP solutions (like OpenERP - it's free AND Open Source) provide some good simple document searching and indexing tools.Really it comes down to how complex you want searching to be?
Are there specific keys in the document you could index by?
Do you require the full-text search capabilities of a Google search appliance?A really good solution I've come across for some clients in Edmonton is Called MetalTrace [traceapps.com] by Trace Applications.
Don't let the name fool you about the specificity, software like this can Scan, Index, and even read barcodes on all sorts of documents then let people search for it via the web.
Their "killer-app" has multiple user-defined document types with multiple search fields, combined with some back-filing (digital and scanning) really saved the day.Do your research though on "Document managment" and see what product best fits your needs.
It's a really well established field so reinventing the wheel is a little masochistic... not that there's anything wrong with that.
;)-Matt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285935</id>
	<title>OpenAFS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OpenAFS will speed up local access,  and also provide an automatic backup of important files at all the satellite offices.   (could be a full backup if you mirror everything).</p><p>As for the lack of any naming convention or other organization -   first, the fact that you somehow manage to continue operating with a hundred thousand documents indicates that you actually DO have some form of organization in place.</p><p>If it isn't structured - get on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenAFS will speed up local access , and also provide an automatic backup of important files at all the satellite offices .
( could be a full backup if you mirror everything ) .As for the lack of any naming convention or other organization - first , the fact that you somehow manage to continue operating with a hundred thousand documents indicates that you actually DO have some form of organization in place.If it is n't structured - get on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenAFS will speed up local access,  and also provide an automatic backup of important files at all the satellite offices.
(could be a full backup if you mirror everything).As for the lack of any naming convention or other organization -   first, the fact that you somehow manage to continue operating with a hundred thousand documents indicates that you actually DO have some form of organization in place.If it isn't structured - get on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285793</id>
	<title>try wiki</title>
	<author>bitsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1244630460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>JamWiki.org, for instance, has search capabilities built in. Has security built-in and easily mnageable. You can upload the documents and even migrate them to wiki format later. Keeping the documents in near-text open format will help you re-migrate them into the future sometime later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>JamWiki.org , for instance , has search capabilities built in .
Has security built-in and easily mnageable .
You can upload the documents and even migrate them to wiki format later .
Keeping the documents in near-text open format will help you re-migrate them into the future sometime later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JamWiki.org, for instance, has search capabilities built in.
Has security built-in and easily mnageable.
You can upload the documents and even migrate them to wiki format later.
Keeping the documents in near-text open format will help you re-migrate them into the future sometime later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285805</id>
	<title>ask google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;q=document+management+system</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.google.com/search ? hl = en&amp;safe = off&amp;q = document + management + system</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;q=document+management+system</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285985</id>
	<title>FileNet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244631000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I worked at a place that used <a href="http://www.filenet.com/" title="filenet.com">FileNet</a> [filenet.com], which is now an IBM product, to do this sort of thing. We had millions of scanned documents in the system. I wasn't personally very impressed with it, in that whenever anything "bad" happened, you had to call IBM because finding support online was impossible, and at that they support wasn't very good. It was also a very picky system, those seemed to handle the load well. If you go with it, I strongly encourage doing it for UNIX/Oracle because it screamed "poorly ported" when we used it for Windows/MSSSQL. It has an API for integration, but it is also, poorly documented and would take some time to integrate into your existing business systems.<br> <br>
This is more of a rant at this point, but it is a stop-gap solution that allows people to continue to use outdated business processes storing important data in image formats or in documents scattered about with minimal indexing/search capabilities, rather than analyzable "data" that can lead to "information." I always take the position that if the goal is something on paper, or the goal is to store something that "was" on paper, it is time to rethink the business process to see if we can automate it, or store/present the data electronically in the first place. The old school fights against it, but no one has ever been able to say it wasn't more efficent in the end and enabled IT to say "yes we can" when the next great idea came along versus "here is a stack of papers, figure out $trend."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked at a place that used FileNet [ filenet.com ] , which is now an IBM product , to do this sort of thing .
We had millions of scanned documents in the system .
I was n't personally very impressed with it , in that whenever anything " bad " happened , you had to call IBM because finding support online was impossible , and at that they support was n't very good .
It was also a very picky system , those seemed to handle the load well .
If you go with it , I strongly encourage doing it for UNIX/Oracle because it screamed " poorly ported " when we used it for Windows/MSSSQL .
It has an API for integration , but it is also , poorly documented and would take some time to integrate into your existing business systems .
This is more of a rant at this point , but it is a stop-gap solution that allows people to continue to use outdated business processes storing important data in image formats or in documents scattered about with minimal indexing/search capabilities , rather than analyzable " data " that can lead to " information .
" I always take the position that if the goal is something on paper , or the goal is to store something that " was " on paper , it is time to rethink the business process to see if we can automate it , or store/present the data electronically in the first place .
The old school fights against it , but no one has ever been able to say it was n't more efficent in the end and enabled IT to say " yes we can " when the next great idea came along versus " here is a stack of papers , figure out $ trend .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked at a place that used FileNet [filenet.com], which is now an IBM product, to do this sort of thing.
We had millions of scanned documents in the system.
I wasn't personally very impressed with it, in that whenever anything "bad" happened, you had to call IBM because finding support online was impossible, and at that they support wasn't very good.
It was also a very picky system, those seemed to handle the load well.
If you go with it, I strongly encourage doing it for UNIX/Oracle because it screamed "poorly ported" when we used it for Windows/MSSSQL.
It has an API for integration, but it is also, poorly documented and would take some time to integrate into your existing business systems.
This is more of a rant at this point, but it is a stop-gap solution that allows people to continue to use outdated business processes storing important data in image formats or in documents scattered about with minimal indexing/search capabilities, rather than analyzable "data" that can lead to "information.
" I always take the position that if the goal is something on paper, or the goal is to store something that "was" on paper, it is time to rethink the business process to see if we can automate it, or store/present the data electronically in the first place.
The old school fights against it, but no one has ever been able to say it wasn't more efficent in the end and enabled IT to say "yes we can" when the next great idea came along versus "here is a stack of papers, figure out $trend.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287855</id>
	<title>Yet another document management system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244642520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for a mid-tier medical company and we use Objective http://www.objective.com/.</p><p>It has its limitations, but it indexes, searches and does version control.  Oh, and the FDA know about it.</p><p>No idea of the cost<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a mid-tier medical company and we use Objective http : //www.objective.com/.It has its limitations , but it indexes , searches and does version control .
Oh , and the FDA know about it.No idea of the cost : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a mid-tier medical company and we use Objective http://www.objective.com/.It has its limitations, but it indexes, searches and does version control.
Oh, and the FDA know about it.No idea of the cost :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285757</id>
	<title>Just the doc, or collaboration?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1244630280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you need to use just plain documents, store then in on big directory, update the meta information.<br>Let people move links onto there system and organize the links how the like, but don't let them move the documents.</p><p>Think iTunes for documents. I loath that example since I have set this sort of thing long before iTunes came around.</p><p>If you on collaborative use of your documents get something like this:<br>Jive.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you need to use just plain documents , store then in on big directory , update the meta information.Let people move links onto there system and organize the links how the like , but do n't let them move the documents.Think iTunes for documents .
I loath that example since I have set this sort of thing long before iTunes came around.If you on collaborative use of your documents get something like this : Jive.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you need to use just plain documents, store then in on big directory, update the meta information.Let people move links onto there system and organize the links how the like, but don't let them move the documents.Think iTunes for documents.
I loath that example since I have set this sort of thing long before iTunes came around.If you on collaborative use of your documents get something like this:Jive.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287539</id>
	<title>Microsoft Sharepoint handles documents well -</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244640420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft Sharepoint seems to handle lots of documents well. It includes document libraries, which are like folders, than you can store documents in. It also has a built in search function, which is described as being able to search through multiple levels of documents and retrieve results. It's also not too expensive. I think there are some specific web parts, or plugins, that even help facilitate document storage and handling.</p><p>The only downside that I can think of is that it requires knowledge of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net as a framework, but that isn't so hard to learn - check it out, it might take you a long way!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft Sharepoint seems to handle lots of documents well .
It includes document libraries , which are like folders , than you can store documents in .
It also has a built in search function , which is described as being able to search through multiple levels of documents and retrieve results .
It 's also not too expensive .
I think there are some specific web parts , or plugins , that even help facilitate document storage and handling.The only downside that I can think of is that it requires knowledge of .Net as a framework , but that is n't so hard to learn - check it out , it might take you a long way !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft Sharepoint seems to handle lots of documents well.
It includes document libraries, which are like folders, than you can store documents in.
It also has a built in search function, which is described as being able to search through multiple levels of documents and retrieve results.
It's also not too expensive.
I think there are some specific web parts, or plugins, that even help facilitate document storage and handling.The only downside that I can think of is that it requires knowledge of .Net as a framework, but that isn't so hard to learn - check it out, it might take you a long way!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288561</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244647920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We use sharepoint, but it is an expensive overkill if all you want to do is manage documents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We use sharepoint , but it is an expensive overkill if all you want to do is manage documents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We use sharepoint, but it is an expensive overkill if all you want to do is manage documents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28297639</id>
	<title>Solr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244748660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe no one has suggested Solr yet!  It's probably the most flexible and mature search product available and it's free (part of the Apache project)!  Set up a solr server and hire a student or three to meta-tag your documents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe no one has suggested Solr yet !
It 's probably the most flexible and mature search product available and it 's free ( part of the Apache project ) !
Set up a solr server and hire a student or three to meta-tag your documents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe no one has suggested Solr yet!
It's probably the most flexible and mature search product available and it's free (part of the Apache project)!
Set up a solr server and hire a student or three to meta-tag your documents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288009</id>
	<title>A cool web application :D</title>
	<author>zeekren</author>
	<datestamp>1244643660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hi there,


    I am one of the developers of this nice web tool which in fact was designed to achieve the requirements you say, we are calling it anydata, but dunno if we'll need to change it's name as it's a registered trademark, at least you see our goal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br>
<br>
           <a href="http://devel.anydata.tv/" title="anydata.tv" rel="nofollow">http://devel.anydata.tv/</a> [anydata.tv] <br>
<br>
    Try it out with firefox if you don't want to see something ugly right now. It's a beta, but in less than 1 month you will see it complete. It looks like a filemanager, pretty well known user interface for browsing documents and information. This system ables you to store files, bookmarks, text notes, contacts and soon pgp'ed passwords for secure-sharing across system administrators.<br>
<br>
    In short, keeps the 'tree-browsing' typical schema of filesystems plus generating and showing previews of documents, tagging, automatic keyword gathering from documents and a search engine.<br>
<br>
    By the way, it's GPL<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D<br>
<br>
    Anyone interested just send me an email to kenneth at gnun d-o-t net and I'll give you a testing user or whatever needed.<br>
<br>
<br>
Cheers!<br>
<br>
Kenneth</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi there , I am one of the developers of this nice web tool which in fact was designed to achieve the requirements you say , we are calling it anydata , but dunno if we 'll need to change it 's name as it 's a registered trademark , at least you see our goal ; ) http : //devel.anydata.tv/ [ anydata.tv ] Try it out with firefox if you do n't want to see something ugly right now .
It 's a beta , but in less than 1 month you will see it complete .
It looks like a filemanager , pretty well known user interface for browsing documents and information .
This system ables you to store files , bookmarks , text notes , contacts and soon pgp'ed passwords for secure-sharing across system administrators .
In short , keeps the 'tree-browsing ' typical schema of filesystems plus generating and showing previews of documents , tagging , automatic keyword gathering from documents and a search engine .
By the way , it 's GPL : D Anyone interested just send me an email to kenneth at gnun d-o-t net and I 'll give you a testing user or whatever needed .
Cheers ! Kenneth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi there,


    I am one of the developers of this nice web tool which in fact was designed to achieve the requirements you say, we are calling it anydata, but dunno if we'll need to change it's name as it's a registered trademark, at least you see our goal ;)

           http://devel.anydata.tv/ [anydata.tv] 

    Try it out with firefox if you don't want to see something ugly right now.
It's a beta, but in less than 1 month you will see it complete.
It looks like a filemanager, pretty well known user interface for browsing documents and information.
This system ables you to store files, bookmarks, text notes, contacts and soon pgp'ed passwords for secure-sharing across system administrators.
In short, keeps the 'tree-browsing' typical schema of filesystems plus generating and showing previews of documents, tagging, automatic keyword gathering from documents and a search engine.
By the way, it's GPL :D

    Anyone interested just send me an email to kenneth at gnun d-o-t net and I'll give you a testing user or whatever needed.
Cheers!

Kenneth</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285641</id>
	<title>Organize the files</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244629920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes you just have to do the work and not look for the magic bullet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes you just have to do the work and not look for the magic bullet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes you just have to do the work and not look for the magic bullet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286297</id>
	<title>Alfresco of course!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244632440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It can scale extremely well.  It is the backend to Adobe's acrobat.com website!  So you know it can handle millions of documents if you need it to.  Sharepoint requires MS SQL Server for searching documents.  With Alfresco, that feature is built in.</p><p>Sharepoint is teaming software and not really designed for large document repositories.  Alfresco has a teaming interface (Alfresco Share) and a more generic document repository interface.</p><p>Alfresco can expose the repository via FTP, SMB, WebDAV, and a web client interface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It can scale extremely well .
It is the backend to Adobe 's acrobat.com website !
So you know it can handle millions of documents if you need it to .
Sharepoint requires MS SQL Server for searching documents .
With Alfresco , that feature is built in.Sharepoint is teaming software and not really designed for large document repositories .
Alfresco has a teaming interface ( Alfresco Share ) and a more generic document repository interface.Alfresco can expose the repository via FTP , SMB , WebDAV , and a web client interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can scale extremely well.
It is the backend to Adobe's acrobat.com website!
So you know it can handle millions of documents if you need it to.
Sharepoint requires MS SQL Server for searching documents.
With Alfresco, that feature is built in.Sharepoint is teaming software and not really designed for large document repositories.
Alfresco has a teaming interface (Alfresco Share) and a more generic document repository interface.Alfresco can expose the repository via FTP, SMB, WebDAV, and a web client interface.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287663</id>
	<title>Document Locator</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244641200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out http://www.columbiasoft.com</p><p>document locator google it, this is the solution we use</p><p>manages all files in a sql database</p><p>organizes etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out http : //www.columbiasoft.comdocument locator google it , this is the solution we usemanages all files in a sql databaseorganizes etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out http://www.columbiasoft.comdocument locator google it, this is the solution we usemanages all files in a sql databaseorganizes etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287705</id>
	<title>Document Management Software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244641560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a bunch of different document management solutions out there.  I'm very unhappy with the one my company uses, so I'm not going to mention it, but if you do a search for document management on google, I'll sure you'll come up with tons of stuff.  There are probably open source solutions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a bunch of different document management solutions out there .
I 'm very unhappy with the one my company uses , so I 'm not going to mention it , but if you do a search for document management on google , I 'll sure you 'll come up with tons of stuff .
There are probably open source solutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a bunch of different document management solutions out there.
I'm very unhappy with the one my company uses, so I'm not going to mention it, but if you do a search for document management on google, I'll sure you'll come up with tons of stuff.
There are probably open source solutions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28290095</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244662860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's completely inaccurate.  It does have an ability to create a folder in a list, but it should rarely be used.  Documents are classified by content types, tagged with metadata and a taxonomy.  You find them based on those attributes, not anything to do with storage hierarchies unless you just really have no idea what your doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's completely inaccurate .
It does have an ability to create a folder in a list , but it should rarely be used .
Documents are classified by content types , tagged with metadata and a taxonomy .
You find them based on those attributes , not anything to do with storage hierarchies unless you just really have no idea what your doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's completely inaccurate.
It does have an ability to create a folder in a list, but it should rarely be used.
Documents are classified by content types, tagged with metadata and a taxonomy.
You find them based on those attributes, not anything to do with storage hierarchies unless you just really have no idea what your doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287383</id>
	<title>I've done this before.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244639340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally dealt with an issue like this at the Australian arm of  large international mining equipment manufacturer. I wrote the software solutions mentioned and went on to do my engineering honors project in the area. My first recommendation is, stay away from document management systems, they are bulky, inefficient  and tend to lock you into "their way" of doing things. As soon as you want something different, you will find yourself stuck. This is a simple problem don't make it too hard for yourself.</p><p>My solution was multi-layered:<br>1) Place exactly 1 person in charge.<br>2) Enforce a naming convention. - Our CAD Drafters and Engineers (of which I did both) were notoriously bad at naming their documents correctly. Most of this was ignorance. Document your naming convention and make it well known.<br>3) Write or come up with a standardized way of generating document numbers. In my current job as a software engineer I would recommend a simple, incremental numbered approach. Every document, every revision, simply gets a new number. Our engineers did not like this. So we went for a middle ground. Something like XXX-YYY-ZZ.eee Where XXX is the equipment type, YYY is the sub type, ZZ is the revision no, eee is the extension/file type.<br>4) Standardize the way you store your documents. For instance, make a folder structure . C:\xxx\yyy\XXX-YYY-ZZ.eee<br>5) Register ALL documents in a database with location, comments, purpose, revision, author name etc etc.<br>6) Take the Draftsperson or the Engineer out of the archiving process. I wrote a utility that checks the a single "to be archived" folder, fixes obvious mistakes such as using "\_" or "." instead of "-" and so on, checks the database to make sure that the document has been registered and then drops the into file system. Make the  archive read only access for everyone except the person in charge (and any utilities of course).<br>7) Clean up your existing archive. This can be a semi-automated process. I wrote a utility to do this partially, but it just takes a lot of painstaking effort. With 70,000 documents this was a slow and painful process but it can be done.<br>8) STICK TO IT. Any exception will erode the system over time making it useless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally dealt with an issue like this at the Australian arm of large international mining equipment manufacturer .
I wrote the software solutions mentioned and went on to do my engineering honors project in the area .
My first recommendation is , stay away from document management systems , they are bulky , inefficient and tend to lock you into " their way " of doing things .
As soon as you want something different , you will find yourself stuck .
This is a simple problem do n't make it too hard for yourself.My solution was multi-layered : 1 ) Place exactly 1 person in charge.2 ) Enforce a naming convention .
- Our CAD Drafters and Engineers ( of which I did both ) were notoriously bad at naming their documents correctly .
Most of this was ignorance .
Document your naming convention and make it well known.3 ) Write or come up with a standardized way of generating document numbers .
In my current job as a software engineer I would recommend a simple , incremental numbered approach .
Every document , every revision , simply gets a new number .
Our engineers did not like this .
So we went for a middle ground .
Something like XXX-YYY-ZZ.eee Where XXX is the equipment type , YYY is the sub type , ZZ is the revision no , eee is the extension/file type.4 ) Standardize the way you store your documents .
For instance , make a folder structure .
C : \ xxx \ yyy \ XXX-YYY-ZZ.eee5 ) Register ALL documents in a database with location , comments , purpose , revision , author name etc etc.6 ) Take the Draftsperson or the Engineer out of the archiving process .
I wrote a utility that checks the a single " to be archived " folder , fixes obvious mistakes such as using " \ _ " or " .
" instead of " - " and so on , checks the database to make sure that the document has been registered and then drops the into file system .
Make the archive read only access for everyone except the person in charge ( and any utilities of course ) .7 ) Clean up your existing archive .
This can be a semi-automated process .
I wrote a utility to do this partially , but it just takes a lot of painstaking effort .
With 70,000 documents this was a slow and painful process but it can be done.8 ) STICK TO IT .
Any exception will erode the system over time making it useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally dealt with an issue like this at the Australian arm of  large international mining equipment manufacturer.
I wrote the software solutions mentioned and went on to do my engineering honors project in the area.
My first recommendation is, stay away from document management systems, they are bulky, inefficient  and tend to lock you into "their way" of doing things.
As soon as you want something different, you will find yourself stuck.
This is a simple problem don't make it too hard for yourself.My solution was multi-layered:1) Place exactly 1 person in charge.2) Enforce a naming convention.
- Our CAD Drafters and Engineers (of which I did both) were notoriously bad at naming their documents correctly.
Most of this was ignorance.
Document your naming convention and make it well known.3) Write or come up with a standardized way of generating document numbers.
In my current job as a software engineer I would recommend a simple, incremental numbered approach.
Every document, every revision, simply gets a new number.
Our engineers did not like this.
So we went for a middle ground.
Something like XXX-YYY-ZZ.eee Where XXX is the equipment type, YYY is the sub type, ZZ is the revision no, eee is the extension/file type.4) Standardize the way you store your documents.
For instance, make a folder structure .
C:\xxx\yyy\XXX-YYY-ZZ.eee5) Register ALL documents in a database with location, comments, purpose, revision, author name etc etc.6) Take the Draftsperson or the Engineer out of the archiving process.
I wrote a utility that checks the a single "to be archived" folder, fixes obvious mistakes such as using "\_" or ".
" instead of "-" and so on, checks the database to make sure that the document has been registered and then drops the into file system.
Make the  archive read only access for everyone except the person in charge (and any utilities of course).7) Clean up your existing archive.
This can be a semi-automated process.
I wrote a utility to do this partially, but it just takes a lot of painstaking effort.
With 70,000 documents this was a slow and painful process but it can be done.8) STICK TO IT.
Any exception will erode the system over time making it useless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28295675</id>
	<title>Re:Google to the rescue?</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1244741880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Isn't this the sort of thing that a google search appliance would be helpful for?</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, but don't make the mistake of thinking that just because Google are the leading web search engine, they must also be the leading document search solution.  Google's web search relies heavily on links between HTML documents to assess their relative importance.  In an office with a lot of plain old documents, there will be no links.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this the sort of thing that a google search appliance would be helpful for ? Yes , but do n't make the mistake of thinking that just because Google are the leading web search engine , they must also be the leading document search solution .
Google 's web search relies heavily on links between HTML documents to assess their relative importance .
In an office with a lot of plain old documents , there will be no links .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this the sort of thing that a google search appliance would be helpful for?Yes, but don't make the mistake of thinking that just because Google are the leading web search engine, they must also be the leading document search solution.
Google's web search relies heavily on links between HTML documents to assess their relative importance.
In an office with a lot of plain old documents, there will be no links.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28290227</id>
	<title>A document management system perhaps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244751000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about getting a real document management system, with version control, unique document numbers, and structured metadata?</p><p>Kronodoc [www.kronodoc.com], Documentum, or something along those lines</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about getting a real document management system , with version control , unique document numbers , and structured metadata ? Kronodoc [ www.kronodoc.com ] , Documentum , or something along those lines</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about getting a real document management system, with version control, unique document numbers, and structured metadata?Kronodoc [www.kronodoc.com], Documentum, or something along those lines</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285731</id>
	<title>Document Locator</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not affliated with them, but I do use their product, and its a steal for the cost.</p><p>www.documentlocator.com</p><p>You get version control, auditing control, web access, and a bunch more stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not affliated with them , but I do use their product , and its a steal for the cost.www.documentlocator.comYou get version control , auditing control , web access , and a bunch more stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not affliated with them, but I do use their product, and its a steal for the cost.www.documentlocator.comYou get version control, auditing control, web access, and a bunch more stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286041</id>
	<title>Just Don't Use Livelink</title>
	<author>Myrv</author>
	<datestamp>1244631180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't really suggest a good document management program but I can tell you one to avoid.  We use Livelink at my place of work and its indexing and search capabilities are horrible (some would say non-existent).  For example every document added to Livelink gets a document number assigned to it. One would expect to be able to retrieve that document by using the same document number but if you enter it into the search bar Livelink returns no results found. Huh?  Not to mention some odd UI behaviours like when you add a folder to the favourites box the original folder disappears from the standard file listing (meaning there is no single canonical listing of files and directories, you need to always look in 2 places).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't really suggest a good document management program but I can tell you one to avoid .
We use Livelink at my place of work and its indexing and search capabilities are horrible ( some would say non-existent ) .
For example every document added to Livelink gets a document number assigned to it .
One would expect to be able to retrieve that document by using the same document number but if you enter it into the search bar Livelink returns no results found .
Huh ? Not to mention some odd UI behaviours like when you add a folder to the favourites box the original folder disappears from the standard file listing ( meaning there is no single canonical listing of files and directories , you need to always look in 2 places ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't really suggest a good document management program but I can tell you one to avoid.
We use Livelink at my place of work and its indexing and search capabilities are horrible (some would say non-existent).
For example every document added to Livelink gets a document number assigned to it.
One would expect to be able to retrieve that document by using the same document number but if you enter it into the search bar Livelink returns no results found.
Huh?  Not to mention some odd UI behaviours like when you add a folder to the favourites box the original folder disappears from the standard file listing (meaning there is no single canonical listing of files and directories, you need to always look in 2 places).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288113</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244644440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try not to select a solution that stores the files in a database (e.g., SharePoint, Oracle Portal). File systems are much cheaper than databases. Plus, the backup, restore, and anti-virus of SharePoint is more challenging (i.e. costly) than the file system.</p><p>So look for a solution that stores the files on the file system, the meta-data in a database, and exposes the files via the web (and ideally via Windows Explorer). Examples include EMC Documentum (mucho expense, but for hundreds of thousands of files, maybe worth it) and Alfresco (and many others).</p><p>Posted by, apparently, an Anonymous Coward...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try not to select a solution that stores the files in a database ( e.g. , SharePoint , Oracle Portal ) .
File systems are much cheaper than databases .
Plus , the backup , restore , and anti-virus of SharePoint is more challenging ( i.e .
costly ) than the file system.So look for a solution that stores the files on the file system , the meta-data in a database , and exposes the files via the web ( and ideally via Windows Explorer ) .
Examples include EMC Documentum ( mucho expense , but for hundreds of thousands of files , maybe worth it ) and Alfresco ( and many others ) .Posted by , apparently , an Anonymous Coward.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try not to select a solution that stores the files in a database (e.g., SharePoint, Oracle Portal).
File systems are much cheaper than databases.
Plus, the backup, restore, and anti-virus of SharePoint is more challenging (i.e.
costly) than the file system.So look for a solution that stores the files on the file system, the meta-data in a database, and exposes the files via the web (and ideally via Windows Explorer).
Examples include EMC Documentum (mucho expense, but for hundreds of thousands of files, maybe worth it) and Alfresco (and many others).Posted by, apparently, an Anonymous Coward...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288255</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>scooterhanson</author>
	<datestamp>1244645340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's a great paper on the drawbacks of Sharepoint: <a href="http://www.yakabod.com/library/downloadDocument.html?docId=10805/" title="yakabod.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.yakabod.com/library/downloadDocument.html?docId=10805/</a> [yakabod.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a great paper on the drawbacks of Sharepoint : http : //www.yakabod.com/library/downloadDocument.html ? docId = 10805/ [ yakabod.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a great paper on the drawbacks of Sharepoint: http://www.yakabod.com/library/downloadDocument.html?docId=10805/ [yakabod.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28290087</id>
	<title>document management and remote office recall</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244662680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are typically 2 approaches to this.  One option for the files is to pull them into a document management tool like enterprise vault or documentum to name a couple.  Those applications will help classify content and reign in administrative controls.  As for enhancing the speed to remote offices there are two options there.  One option is something like Microsoft's DFS or the andrew file system.  These file systems spread data files to where they are needed.  As well some of the storage array vendors have caching appliances or capabilities in their gear.  In that case you'd have a smaller remote storage array that acts as a read-through cache to the central storage array where files are managed.  But for CIFS traffic that gets pretty complicated because, at least SMB1.x is a persistent connection.  Option B for remote user performance enhancement might be to look at some packet level de-duplication technology like Cisco WAAS or Riverbed.  The WAAS device is really cool because it has a disk cache in it that holds back often called for information.  (thus acting as a quasi file cache)  The nice part about these things is you don't have to back them up or worry about managing the content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are typically 2 approaches to this .
One option for the files is to pull them into a document management tool like enterprise vault or documentum to name a couple .
Those applications will help classify content and reign in administrative controls .
As for enhancing the speed to remote offices there are two options there .
One option is something like Microsoft 's DFS or the andrew file system .
These file systems spread data files to where they are needed .
As well some of the storage array vendors have caching appliances or capabilities in their gear .
In that case you 'd have a smaller remote storage array that acts as a read-through cache to the central storage array where files are managed .
But for CIFS traffic that gets pretty complicated because , at least SMB1.x is a persistent connection .
Option B for remote user performance enhancement might be to look at some packet level de-duplication technology like Cisco WAAS or Riverbed .
The WAAS device is really cool because it has a disk cache in it that holds back often called for information .
( thus acting as a quasi file cache ) The nice part about these things is you do n't have to back them up or worry about managing the content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are typically 2 approaches to this.
One option for the files is to pull them into a document management tool like enterprise vault or documentum to name a couple.
Those applications will help classify content and reign in administrative controls.
As for enhancing the speed to remote offices there are two options there.
One option is something like Microsoft's DFS or the andrew file system.
These file systems spread data files to where they are needed.
As well some of the storage array vendors have caching appliances or capabilities in their gear.
In that case you'd have a smaller remote storage array that acts as a read-through cache to the central storage array where files are managed.
But for CIFS traffic that gets pretty complicated because, at least SMB1.x is a persistent connection.
Option B for remote user performance enhancement might be to look at some packet level de-duplication technology like Cisco WAAS or Riverbed.
The WAAS device is really cool because it has a disk cache in it that holds back often called for information.
(thus acting as a quasi file cache)  The nice part about these things is you don't have to back them up or worry about managing the content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287747</id>
	<title>We use ImageNow 6</title>
	<author>Nimey</author>
	<datestamp>1244641860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work at a midwestern public university in the USA, and we've been using this program for several years and a few versions.  Backend can work on AIX, Linux, or Windows, and the frontend at least Windows (don't know if Macs or *nix are supported, we don't have many of those on users' desks).  We probably have several gigs of imaged documents in this system, and it seems to work pretty well.</p><p>You'll have to import all the documents into the system, of course.  The company recommends certain tractor-feed scanners for this; lighter-duty ones are USB, heavier are SCSI.  I think it also has a software printer emulator to let you dump e.g. Word documents into the system; how you organize things is up to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work at a midwestern public university in the USA , and we 've been using this program for several years and a few versions .
Backend can work on AIX , Linux , or Windows , and the frontend at least Windows ( do n't know if Macs or * nix are supported , we do n't have many of those on users ' desks ) .
We probably have several gigs of imaged documents in this system , and it seems to work pretty well.You 'll have to import all the documents into the system , of course .
The company recommends certain tractor-feed scanners for this ; lighter-duty ones are USB , heavier are SCSI .
I think it also has a software printer emulator to let you dump e.g .
Word documents into the system ; how you organize things is up to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work at a midwestern public university in the USA, and we've been using this program for several years and a few versions.
Backend can work on AIX, Linux, or Windows, and the frontend at least Windows (don't know if Macs or *nix are supported, we don't have many of those on users' desks).
We probably have several gigs of imaged documents in this system, and it seems to work pretty well.You'll have to import all the documents into the system, of course.
The company recommends certain tractor-feed scanners for this; lighter-duty ones are USB, heavier are SCSI.
I think it also has a software printer emulator to let you dump e.g.
Word documents into the system; how you organize things is up to you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286445</id>
	<title>Oracle or Alfresco</title>
	<author>steverar</author>
	<datestamp>1244633340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We went through this for both document management and web front end for access.

We looked through, Sharepoint, Alfresco, Oracle UCM, Reddot and a few others.

We dropped most due to cost, functionality, and ease of use for non-developers to do page work.

Sharepoint was dropped due to cost in an internet setting (CALs), no non-developer front end for page layout (they couldn't use HTML) and it stores everything in the database.  From prior experience this made backup/restore difficult as it keeps the IP ofthe web site in the database when you backup.  If you restore to a different machine it gets confused.

It was between Oracle and Alfresco.  You cannot go wrong with either.  Both are extensible, either have what you need built in or can be added easily.  Both are good for non-developers to use.  Support is very good with either.

We went with Oracle.  While it did cost more it matched our existing infrastructure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We went through this for both document management and web front end for access .
We looked through , Sharepoint , Alfresco , Oracle UCM , Reddot and a few others .
We dropped most due to cost , functionality , and ease of use for non-developers to do page work .
Sharepoint was dropped due to cost in an internet setting ( CALs ) , no non-developer front end for page layout ( they could n't use HTML ) and it stores everything in the database .
From prior experience this made backup/restore difficult as it keeps the IP ofthe web site in the database when you backup .
If you restore to a different machine it gets confused .
It was between Oracle and Alfresco .
You can not go wrong with either .
Both are extensible , either have what you need built in or can be added easily .
Both are good for non-developers to use .
Support is very good with either .
We went with Oracle .
While it did cost more it matched our existing infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We went through this for both document management and web front end for access.
We looked through, Sharepoint, Alfresco, Oracle UCM, Reddot and a few others.
We dropped most due to cost, functionality, and ease of use for non-developers to do page work.
Sharepoint was dropped due to cost in an internet setting (CALs), no non-developer front end for page layout (they couldn't use HTML) and it stores everything in the database.
From prior experience this made backup/restore difficult as it keeps the IP ofthe web site in the database when you backup.
If you restore to a different machine it gets confused.
It was between Oracle and Alfresco.
You cannot go wrong with either.
Both are extensible, either have what you need built in or can be added easily.
Both are good for non-developers to use.
Support is very good with either.
We went with Oracle.
While it did cost more it matched our existing infrastructure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28298895</id>
	<title>HIRE A REFERENCE LIBRARIAN</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244753100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HIRE A REFERENCE LIBRARIAN! Seriously. You have all sorts of ad-hoc suggestions here, none of which addresses the core issue: You have a metric shitload of written, unorganized data. There is a category of professionals who specialize in organizing, cataloging, abstracting and making writtten data available in easily-usable formats. Reference librarians. They even use  IT extensively. Check ala.org for more.</p><p>(Besides, some real-life reference librarians are hawt - just not where you live.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HIRE A REFERENCE LIBRARIAN !
Seriously. You have all sorts of ad-hoc suggestions here , none of which addresses the core issue : You have a metric shitload of written , unorganized data .
There is a category of professionals who specialize in organizing , cataloging , abstracting and making writtten data available in easily-usable formats .
Reference librarians .
They even use IT extensively .
Check ala.org for more .
( Besides , some real-life reference librarians are hawt - just not where you live .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HIRE A REFERENCE LIBRARIAN!
Seriously. You have all sorts of ad-hoc suggestions here, none of which addresses the core issue: You have a metric shitload of written, unorganized data.
There is a category of professionals who specialize in organizing, cataloging, abstracting and making writtten data available in easily-usable formats.
Reference librarians.
They even use  IT extensively.
Check ala.org for more.
(Besides, some real-life reference librarians are hawt - just not where you live.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28295157</id>
	<title>WAN Optimization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244740140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In terms of making the WAN experience less painful, you need to get some WAN optimization appliances in your network:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAN\_optimization<br>http://www.riverbed.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In terms of making the WAN experience less painful , you need to get some WAN optimization appliances in your network : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAN \ _optimizationhttp : //www.riverbed.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In terms of making the WAN experience less painful, you need to get some WAN optimization appliances in your network:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAN\_optimizationhttp://www.riverbed.com/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28290929</id>
	<title>Google search appliance</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1244718060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Go to Google main page and look for business solutions.  They have a scheme where they'll charge you x dollars to index y hundred thousand documents, and they throw in the tinware (a custom pre-configured rack of search hardware, very scaleable) for you to plug into your LAN.  All strictly inside your firewall.  Set it up to crawl all your file shares and it won't matter whether you have a document management system or not.  Most document management systems depend on keywords, taxonomies and special file name codes, all of which are decidedly old-hat.  Index it and let 'em go search.  The smallest version is kind of basic, but go up one level and they'll crawl pdf's, word docs, pretty much anything with text in it compressed or in source libraries or whatnot.  They're pretty good.  Not cheap, but then you're an aerospace firm...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go to Google main page and look for business solutions .
They have a scheme where they 'll charge you x dollars to index y hundred thousand documents , and they throw in the tinware ( a custom pre-configured rack of search hardware , very scaleable ) for you to plug into your LAN .
All strictly inside your firewall .
Set it up to crawl all your file shares and it wo n't matter whether you have a document management system or not .
Most document management systems depend on keywords , taxonomies and special file name codes , all of which are decidedly old-hat .
Index it and let 'em go search .
The smallest version is kind of basic , but go up one level and they 'll crawl pdf 's , word docs , pretty much anything with text in it compressed or in source libraries or whatnot .
They 're pretty good .
Not cheap , but then you 're an aerospace firm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go to Google main page and look for business solutions.
They have a scheme where they'll charge you x dollars to index y hundred thousand documents, and they throw in the tinware (a custom pre-configured rack of search hardware, very scaleable) for you to plug into your LAN.
All strictly inside your firewall.
Set it up to crawl all your file shares and it won't matter whether you have a document management system or not.
Most document management systems depend on keywords, taxonomies and special file name codes, all of which are decidedly old-hat.
Index it and let 'em go search.
The smallest version is kind of basic, but go up one level and they'll crawl pdf's, word docs, pretty much anything with text in it compressed or in source libraries or whatnot.
They're pretty good.
Not cheap, but then you're an aerospace firm...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287821</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>FooRat</author>
	<datestamp>1244642340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For an aerospace company, you probably need something from a company with a better security track record - sorry, that's just due diligence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For an aerospace company , you probably need something from a company with a better security track record - sorry , that 's just due diligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For an aerospace company, you probably need something from a company with a better security track record - sorry, that's just due diligence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288409</id>
	<title>Re:Document management software</title>
	<author>thoglette</author>
	<datestamp>1244646660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a dozen or so companies providing software in this area, from littlies like Atrove to the big players like Xerox's Docushare.</p><p>You have three problems<br>a) MS windows does not work with large end-to-end delays.  You are going to need something third party (sharepoint, as has been pointed out, is not a solution to your problems)<br>b) you apparently don't know who owns your documents.  You need to sort your documents by publisher, IP ownership rules and then publisher's ID<br>c) I worry when a "midsized aerospace company" hasn't worked out how to identify; revision control drafts and  baseline manage issued documentation.</p><p>The problem has been solved for many years - the tools and best practice are constantly evolving (particularily with managing AV data).</p><p>Hire a DM/CM dude from a proper aerospace company.  Or two.  Or even a properly qualified librarian.</p><p>Finally, how on earth are you currently meet your contractual obligations?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a dozen or so companies providing software in this area , from littlies like Atrove to the big players like Xerox 's Docushare.You have three problemsa ) MS windows does not work with large end-to-end delays .
You are going to need something third party ( sharepoint , as has been pointed out , is not a solution to your problems ) b ) you apparently do n't know who owns your documents .
You need to sort your documents by publisher , IP ownership rules and then publisher 's IDc ) I worry when a " midsized aerospace company " has n't worked out how to identify ; revision control drafts and baseline manage issued documentation.The problem has been solved for many years - the tools and best practice are constantly evolving ( particularily with managing AV data ) .Hire a DM/CM dude from a proper aerospace company .
Or two .
Or even a properly qualified librarian.Finally , how on earth are you currently meet your contractual obligations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a dozen or so companies providing software in this area, from littlies like Atrove to the big players like Xerox's Docushare.You have three problemsa) MS windows does not work with large end-to-end delays.
You are going to need something third party (sharepoint, as has been pointed out, is not a solution to your problems)b) you apparently don't know who owns your documents.
You need to sort your documents by publisher, IP ownership rules and then publisher's IDc) I worry when a "midsized aerospace company" hasn't worked out how to identify; revision control drafts and  baseline manage issued documentation.The problem has been solved for many years - the tools and best practice are constantly evolving (particularily with managing AV data).Hire a DM/CM dude from a proper aerospace company.
Or two.
Or even a properly qualified librarian.Finally, how on earth are you currently meet your contractual obligations?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286059</id>
	<title>It's called a DAM system. Do some research.</title>
	<author>Logic Bomb</author>
	<datestamp>1244631240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Digital Asset Management</p><p><a href="http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=digital+asset+management" title="lmgtfy.com">http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=digital+asset+management</a> [lmgtfy.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Digital Asset Managementhttp : //www.lmgtfy.com/ ? q = digital + asset + management [ lmgtfy.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Digital Asset Managementhttp://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=digital+asset+management [lmgtfy.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28303657</id>
	<title>Re:Garbage In Garbage Out</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1244734800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Dashes and ampersands. Are they a problem? Aesthetically unpleasant? I personally restrict punctuation in a filesystem to dashes, periods, and parenthesis (unless the punctuation is a replicable part of the name of the file/folder).</p><p>

Examples:<br>
01 - The First Track (vocal)<br>
02 - $lashhvertisements Attack!<br>
03 - Where Have All the A.C.'s Gone</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

I'm not sure if you've done it deliberately, but all of your examples are a problem for cross-platform use.  To answer the question, ampersands are always a problem, as they have special meaning in many contexts. Dashes are a problem only when they are the first character in a file name, where they can be misinterpreted as starting a list of options, and it isn't obvious how to make them be understood as a file name (quoting doesn't always work).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dashes and ampersands .
Are they a problem ?
Aesthetically unpleasant ?
I personally restrict punctuation in a filesystem to dashes , periods , and parenthesis ( unless the punctuation is a replicable part of the name of the file/folder ) .
Examples : 01 - The First Track ( vocal ) 02 - $ lashhvertisements Attack !
03 - Where Have All the A.C. 's Gone I 'm not sure if you 've done it deliberately , but all of your examples are a problem for cross-platform use .
To answer the question , ampersands are always a problem , as they have special meaning in many contexts .
Dashes are a problem only when they are the first character in a file name , where they can be misinterpreted as starting a list of options , and it is n't obvious how to make them be understood as a file name ( quoting does n't always work ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dashes and ampersands.
Are they a problem?
Aesthetically unpleasant?
I personally restrict punctuation in a filesystem to dashes, periods, and parenthesis (unless the punctuation is a replicable part of the name of the file/folder).
Examples:
01 - The First Track (vocal)
02 - $lashhvertisements Attack!
03 - Where Have All the A.C.'s Gone


I'm not sure if you've done it deliberately, but all of your examples are a problem for cross-platform use.
To answer the question, ampersands are always a problem, as they have special meaning in many contexts.
Dashes are a problem only when they are the first character in a file name, where they can be misinterpreted as starting a list of options, and it isn't obvious how to make them be understood as a file name (quoting doesn't always work).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286797</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244635260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SharePoint's got nothin on Equella http://www.equella.com/ . Great product, great people behind it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SharePoint 's got nothin on Equella http : //www.equella.com/ .
Great product , great people behind it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SharePoint's got nothin on Equella http://www.equella.com/ .
Great product, great people behind it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285691</id>
	<title>Google Search Appliance</title>
	<author>Swampash</author>
	<datestamp>1244630100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.google.com/enterprise/gsa/" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/enterprise/gsa/</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.google.com/enterprise/gsa/ [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.google.com/enterprise/gsa/ [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28294669</id>
	<title>Re:Odd that the next story...</title>
	<author>msantosn</author>
	<datestamp>1244738400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Targeted Merchandising?

First, create the necessity, show the solution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Targeted Merchandising ?
First , create the necessity , show the solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Targeted Merchandising?
First, create the necessity, show the solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286591</id>
	<title>A Document Management System?</title>
	<author>Super Jamie</author>
	<datestamp>1244634180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unsurprisingly, the answer to managing many documents is to use a document management system. There are several commercial and free products available, both linked here and on the Wikipedia page for Document Management Systems.<br> <br>

I've worked next to the team who administered Bentley ProjectWise in a previous engineering job, which is expensive but definitely suited to your task. There may be other good options out there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unsurprisingly , the answer to managing many documents is to use a document management system .
There are several commercial and free products available , both linked here and on the Wikipedia page for Document Management Systems .
I 've worked next to the team who administered Bentley ProjectWise in a previous engineering job , which is expensive but definitely suited to your task .
There may be other good options out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unsurprisingly, the answer to managing many documents is to use a document management system.
There are several commercial and free products available, both linked here and on the Wikipedia page for Document Management Systems.
I've worked next to the team who administered Bentley ProjectWise in a previous engineering job, which is expensive but definitely suited to your task.
There may be other good options out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288833</id>
	<title>Salesforce Content is another option</title>
	<author>0xbeefcake</author>
	<datestamp>1244650680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of your options is to use Salesforce Content, which is a very usable content &amp; collaboration piece from salesforce.com. It's fully wired in to the rest of the force.com platform and CRM apps suite too,  so if you're looking to build out more of your company's apps in the cloud, it's worth taking a look at it.  <a href="http://www.salesforce.com/crm/marketing-automation/document-content-management/" title="salesforce.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.salesforce.com/crm/marketing-automation/document-content-management/</a> [salesforce.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of your options is to use Salesforce Content , which is a very usable content &amp; collaboration piece from salesforce.com .
It 's fully wired in to the rest of the force.com platform and CRM apps suite too , so if you 're looking to build out more of your company 's apps in the cloud , it 's worth taking a look at it .
http : //www.salesforce.com/crm/marketing-automation/document-content-management/ [ salesforce.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of your options is to use Salesforce Content, which is a very usable content &amp; collaboration piece from salesforce.com.
It's fully wired in to the rest of the force.com platform and CRM apps suite too,  so if you're looking to build out more of your company's apps in the cloud, it's worth taking a look at it.
http://www.salesforce.com/crm/marketing-automation/document-content-management/ [salesforce.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285677</id>
	<title>OpenDocMan</title>
	<author>loVolt</author>
	<datestamp>1244630040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OpenDocMan has helped a lot with our Graphics and Engineering department issues, similar to yours,<br>ldap access to storage helped  sort out who could put what<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..where. The implementation took a bit of<br>time to get the original files files into right locations, but it's easyer to manage now.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenDocMan has helped a lot with our Graphics and Engineering department issues , similar to yours,ldap access to storage helped sort out who could put what ..where .
The implementation took a bit oftime to get the original files files into right locations , but it 's easyer to manage now .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenDocMan has helped a lot with our Graphics and Engineering department issues, similar to yours,ldap access to storage helped  sort out who could put what ..where.
The implementation took a bit oftime to get the original files files into right locations, but it's easyer to manage now.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288555</id>
	<title>Or you could use the cloud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244647860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could have them hosted online, something like Google Docs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could have them hosted online , something like Google Docs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could have them hosted online, something like Google Docs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286361</id>
	<title>Filenet vs OnBase</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244632920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, you could use a big solution from IBM (filenet) or one of the other products they make that compete with each other that were mashed together from years of acquisitions.  Not to mention the large costs of "test" databases and extensive configuration.</p><p>I have used OnBase from Hyland Software for years at my office.  THey are a family run company in Ohio with google'esqe leanings.  (see photos of the large plastic slides on Wikipedia)  They have always been easy to use, robust, point and click configurable and they have the ability to screen grab from almost any legacy application.  (COLD/DIP as well) Straight forward pricing...out of the box functionality.   it just works.</p><p>I strongly recommend you take a look for yourself.  (i wont post any links....i am not a OnBase stooge bot...just a fan)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , you could use a big solution from IBM ( filenet ) or one of the other products they make that compete with each other that were mashed together from years of acquisitions .
Not to mention the large costs of " test " databases and extensive configuration.I have used OnBase from Hyland Software for years at my office .
THey are a family run company in Ohio with google'esqe leanings .
( see photos of the large plastic slides on Wikipedia ) They have always been easy to use , robust , point and click configurable and they have the ability to screen grab from almost any legacy application .
( COLD/DIP as well ) Straight forward pricing...out of the box functionality .
it just works.I strongly recommend you take a look for yourself .
( i wont post any links....i am not a OnBase stooge bot...just a fan )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, you could use a big solution from IBM (filenet) or one of the other products they make that compete with each other that were mashed together from years of acquisitions.
Not to mention the large costs of "test" databases and extensive configuration.I have used OnBase from Hyland Software for years at my office.
THey are a family run company in Ohio with google'esqe leanings.
(see photos of the large plastic slides on Wikipedia)  They have always been easy to use, robust, point and click configurable and they have the ability to screen grab from almost any legacy application.
(COLD/DIP as well) Straight forward pricing...out of the box functionality.
it just works.I strongly recommend you take a look for yourself.
(i wont post any links....i am not a OnBase stooge bot...just a fan)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286453</id>
	<title>Open Text - Document Management Solutions</title>
	<author>CodeMonkey22</author>
	<datestamp>1244633340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is built for the exact situation you described:<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.opentext.com/2/global/sol-products/sol-pro-docmgmt-collaboration.htm" title="opentext.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.opentext.com/2/global/sol-products/sol-pro-docmgmt-collaboration.htm</a> [opentext.com] <br>

You can either import the files into the system, or leave them in place, index them and use the search engines to locate the needles in your haystacks...<br> <br>

About Open Text:<br> <br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open\_Text" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open\_Text</a> [wikipedia.org] <br> <br>
Hummingbird is a subsidiary of Open Text, the solution mentioned above...<br> <br>

Full Disclosure: <br> <br>

I am an Open Text employee.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is built for the exact situation you described : http : //www.opentext.com/2/global/sol-products/sol-pro-docmgmt-collaboration.htm [ opentext.com ] You can either import the files into the system , or leave them in place , index them and use the search engines to locate the needles in your haystacks.. . About Open Text : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open \ _Text [ wikipedia.org ] Hummingbird is a subsidiary of Open Text , the solution mentioned above.. . Full Disclosure : I am an Open Text employee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is built for the exact situation you described: 

http://www.opentext.com/2/global/sol-products/sol-pro-docmgmt-collaboration.htm [opentext.com] 

You can either import the files into the system, or leave them in place, index them and use the search engines to locate the needles in your haystacks... 

About Open Text: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open\_Text [wikipedia.org]  
Hummingbird is a subsidiary of Open Text, the solution mentioned above... 

Full Disclosure:  

I am an Open Text employee.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287163</id>
	<title>Document Controller</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244637600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before you look for a technical solution, hire a Document Controller.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before you look for a technical solution , hire a Document Controller .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before you look for a technical solution, hire a Document Controller.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285815</id>
	<title>I worked on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a web application 4 years ago at Konica-Minolta. It is called DocuBreeze. I am not sure whether you need all the functionality it provides, but you may want to take a look. Google Docubreeze and you will find it.</p><p>I am no way related to this company any more and I have nothing to gain from recommending this to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a web application 4 years ago at Konica-Minolta .
It is called DocuBreeze .
I am not sure whether you need all the functionality it provides , but you may want to take a look .
Google Docubreeze and you will find it.I am no way related to this company any more and I have nothing to gain from recommending this to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a web application 4 years ago at Konica-Minolta.
It is called DocuBreeze.
I am not sure whether you need all the functionality it provides, but you may want to take a look.
Google Docubreeze and you will find it.I am no way related to this company any more and I have nothing to gain from recommending this to you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28294735</id>
	<title>DMS vs. Repository</title>
	<author>oneiros27</author>
	<datestamp>1244738700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised that there were quite a few programs not mentions on the DMS wikipedia page -- People might consider them to be more as repository software than DMS (or RMS), but some other ones to mention that would be useful to managing already existing documents:</p><ul> <li> <a href="http://www.fedora.info/" title="fedora.info">FedoraCommons</a> [fedora.info] </li><li>
<a href="http://www.dspace.org/" title="dspace.org">DSpace</a> [dspace.org] </li></ul><p>And if you're looking for librarians with an IT background, in the libraries they're called "Systems Librarians".  You might also check out the <a href="http://www.oss4lib.org/" title="oss4lib.org">oss4lib</a> [oss4lib.org] and <a href="http://www.code4lib.org/" title="code4lib.org">code4lib</a> [code4lib.org] communities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised that there were quite a few programs not mentions on the DMS wikipedia page -- People might consider them to be more as repository software than DMS ( or RMS ) , but some other ones to mention that would be useful to managing already existing documents : FedoraCommons [ fedora.info ] DSpace [ dspace.org ] And if you 're looking for librarians with an IT background , in the libraries they 're called " Systems Librarians " .
You might also check out the oss4lib [ oss4lib.org ] and code4lib [ code4lib.org ] communities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised that there were quite a few programs not mentions on the DMS wikipedia page -- People might consider them to be more as repository software than DMS (or RMS), but some other ones to mention that would be useful to managing already existing documents:  FedoraCommons [fedora.info] 
DSpace [dspace.org] And if you're looking for librarians with an IT background, in the libraries they're called "Systems Librarians".
You might also check out the oss4lib [oss4lib.org] and code4lib [code4lib.org] communities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287067</id>
	<title>Obviously</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244636880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously throw them on the desktop.  Once it fills, throw them into a New Folder.  Once your desktop fills with Folders, throw those in My Documents.  Repeat until your computer crashes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously throw them on the desktop .
Once it fills , throw them into a New Folder .
Once your desktop fills with Folders , throw those in My Documents .
Repeat until your computer crashes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously throw them on the desktop.
Once it fills, throw them into a New Folder.
Once your desktop fills with Folders, throw those in My Documents.
Repeat until your computer crashes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285903</id>
	<title>Shameless plug</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work on a product whose focus is to address this very problem. Check us out at http://www.kalexo.com/</p><p>It's integrated file/document/project management. It's targeted at industries that are geographically spread far and wide but need collaborative, secure access to common files to work on stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work on a product whose focus is to address this very problem .
Check us out at http : //www.kalexo.com/It 's integrated file/document/project management .
It 's targeted at industries that are geographically spread far and wide but need collaborative , secure access to common files to work on stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work on a product whose focus is to address this very problem.
Check us out at http://www.kalexo.com/It's integrated file/document/project management.
It's targeted at industries that are geographically spread far and wide but need collaborative, secure access to common files to work on stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28293379</id>
	<title>Help with documents and files</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244733480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at www.Blinkedm.com<br>It's easy to use, offers a lot of features and far less expensive than a lot of the products out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at www.Blinkedm.comIt 's easy to use , offers a lot of features and far less expensive than a lot of the products out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at www.Blinkedm.comIt's easy to use, offers a lot of features and far less expensive than a lot of the products out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285773</id>
	<title>Knowledge Tree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.knowledgetree.com/" title="knowledgetree.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.knowledgetree.com/</a> [knowledgetree.com]
If you're looking for a no-cost (read as no license fee) option then Knowledge Tree Community Edition is a decent Document Management tool. We've been using it for a couple of years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.knowledgetree.com/ [ knowledgetree.com ] If you 're looking for a no-cost ( read as no license fee ) option then Knowledge Tree Community Edition is a decent Document Management tool .
We 've been using it for a couple of years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.knowledgetree.com/ [knowledgetree.com]
If you're looking for a no-cost (read as no license fee) option then Knowledge Tree Community Edition is a decent Document Management tool.
We've been using it for a couple of years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287581</id>
	<title>An Inhouse System</title>
	<author>sasha328</author>
	<datestamp>1244640660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're an old engineering company, and our products last decades, so we need to keep lots of records.<br>Recently, we started scanning old documents (a warehouse full of them) to make room for expansion.<br>It is a very tedious process, because we can't risk shredding the old files unless we know for sure that the scans are correct. Amyway, for storage, we decided to go for an in house web-based system (some one developed it for us) that is quite basic, and does two important things for us:<br>1- it references the file in it's location, rather than store the file in a database and copy it to the webserver<br>2- gives us the ability to change meta data (the document indexes) as we find errors in them</p><p>By referencing a file in it's "physical" location gives us two layers of access control: 1- through the database permissions, and the other one through file system permissions. this is important for restricted files...</p><p>Obviously, searching is the important part. and indexing is absolutely critical and the most time consuming process.</p><p>Someone suggested to us Google appliance, but non of the scanned documents can be searched. they are all images.</p><p>The actual application is pretty basic concept (nice interface features, but the concept is simple)<br>1- A database to hold the info<br>2- a table per document type containing teh meta data and the filename and filepath<br>3- a web interface to search and re-search to narrow down the list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're an old engineering company , and our products last decades , so we need to keep lots of records.Recently , we started scanning old documents ( a warehouse full of them ) to make room for expansion.It is a very tedious process , because we ca n't risk shredding the old files unless we know for sure that the scans are correct .
Amyway , for storage , we decided to go for an in house web-based system ( some one developed it for us ) that is quite basic , and does two important things for us : 1- it references the file in it 's location , rather than store the file in a database and copy it to the webserver2- gives us the ability to change meta data ( the document indexes ) as we find errors in themBy referencing a file in it 's " physical " location gives us two layers of access control : 1- through the database permissions , and the other one through file system permissions .
this is important for restricted files...Obviously , searching is the important part .
and indexing is absolutely critical and the most time consuming process.Someone suggested to us Google appliance , but non of the scanned documents can be searched .
they are all images.The actual application is pretty basic concept ( nice interface features , but the concept is simple ) 1- A database to hold the info2- a table per document type containing teh meta data and the filename and filepath3- a web interface to search and re-search to narrow down the list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're an old engineering company, and our products last decades, so we need to keep lots of records.Recently, we started scanning old documents (a warehouse full of them) to make room for expansion.It is a very tedious process, because we can't risk shredding the old files unless we know for sure that the scans are correct.
Amyway, for storage, we decided to go for an in house web-based system (some one developed it for us) that is quite basic, and does two important things for us:1- it references the file in it's location, rather than store the file in a database and copy it to the webserver2- gives us the ability to change meta data (the document indexes) as we find errors in themBy referencing a file in it's "physical" location gives us two layers of access control: 1- through the database permissions, and the other one through file system permissions.
this is important for restricted files...Obviously, searching is the important part.
and indexing is absolutely critical and the most time consuming process.Someone suggested to us Google appliance, but non of the scanned documents can be searched.
they are all images.The actual application is pretty basic concept (nice interface features, but the concept is simple)1- A database to hold the info2- a table per document type containing teh meta data and the filename and filepath3- a web interface to search and re-search to narrow down the list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287091</id>
	<title>Find and Egrep</title>
	<author>antirelic</author>
	<datestamp>1244637060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basic unix tools can do the trick. find (atime,ctime,etc) mixed with egrep, or just egrep with -R... all sorts of solutions, right at your command line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basic unix tools can do the trick .
find ( atime,ctime,etc ) mixed with egrep , or just egrep with -R... all sorts of solutions , right at your command line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basic unix tools can do the trick.
find (atime,ctime,etc) mixed with egrep, or just egrep with -R... all sorts of solutions, right at your command line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287897</id>
	<title>swish-e</title>
	<author>ggpauly</author>
	<datestamp>1244642760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I implemented swish-e, <a href="http://swish-e.org/" title="swish-e.org" rel="nofollow">http://swish-e.org/</a> [swish-e.org]  for a client with html and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pdf indexing (nightly) in 11 hours from a standing start (never used swish-e before).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I implemented swish-e , http : //swish-e.org/ [ swish-e.org ] for a client with html and .pdf indexing ( nightly ) in 11 hours from a standing start ( never used swish-e before ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I implemented swish-e, http://swish-e.org/ [swish-e.org]  for a client with html and .pdf indexing (nightly) in 11 hours from a standing start (never used swish-e before).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286987</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>nighty5</author>
	<datestamp>1244636460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We use SharePoint in a large enterprise although its pretty good at mashing together websites - unfortunately its really poor at search.

I think Search 4.0 may improve the situation, but its nowhere near Yahoo, Google or other search technology.

Technology doesn't solve all problems, I'd say this said company needs to focus on strengthening business process and implementing some user awareness programs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We use SharePoint in a large enterprise although its pretty good at mashing together websites - unfortunately its really poor at search .
I think Search 4.0 may improve the situation , but its nowhere near Yahoo , Google or other search technology .
Technology does n't solve all problems , I 'd say this said company needs to focus on strengthening business process and implementing some user awareness programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We use SharePoint in a large enterprise although its pretty good at mashing together websites - unfortunately its really poor at search.
I think Search 4.0 may improve the situation, but its nowhere near Yahoo, Google or other search technology.
Technology doesn't solve all problems, I'd say this said company needs to focus on strengthening business process and implementing some user awareness programs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285987</id>
	<title>Technical issues aside</title>
	<author>Vroom\_Vroom</author>
	<datestamp>1244631000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hire a document manager / clerk person who will create order. Your engineers won't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hire a document manager / clerk person who will create order .
Your engineers wo n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hire a document manager / clerk person who will create order.
Your engineers won't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285759</id>
	<title>Document Management to the Rescue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like you need a real document management system.</p><p>Depending on your requirements, you could go with something open source like Alfresco or one of the big boys like EMC Documentum or IBM/Filenet P8.  Either way, you will end-up with an indexed repository of documents that makes it easy to to find old documents, add new ones, etc (assuming you and/or your integrator do the project correctly).  It will also provide a web front-end so you don't have as much killer WAN traffic as you do now.</p><p>With a good document management system in-place, you are also on your way to having a workflow and other benefits as well.  e.g.  When Bob submits a document with XYZ as an index value, automatically tell Joe that it is in and ask Joe to approve it.  When Joe approves it, tag it "Approved", and let Jim know.</p><p>Depending on your requirements for document retention, archiving, e-discovery, etc. the document management system can help you fulfill all of those automatically.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like you need a real document management system.Depending on your requirements , you could go with something open source like Alfresco or one of the big boys like EMC Documentum or IBM/Filenet P8 .
Either way , you will end-up with an indexed repository of documents that makes it easy to to find old documents , add new ones , etc ( assuming you and/or your integrator do the project correctly ) .
It will also provide a web front-end so you do n't have as much killer WAN traffic as you do now.With a good document management system in-place , you are also on your way to having a workflow and other benefits as well .
e.g. When Bob submits a document with XYZ as an index value , automatically tell Joe that it is in and ask Joe to approve it .
When Joe approves it , tag it " Approved " , and let Jim know.Depending on your requirements for document retention , archiving , e-discovery , etc .
the document management system can help you fulfill all of those automatically .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like you need a real document management system.Depending on your requirements, you could go with something open source like Alfresco or one of the big boys like EMC Documentum or IBM/Filenet P8.
Either way, you will end-up with an indexed repository of documents that makes it easy to to find old documents, add new ones, etc (assuming you and/or your integrator do the project correctly).
It will also provide a web front-end so you don't have as much killer WAN traffic as you do now.With a good document management system in-place, you are also on your way to having a workflow and other benefits as well.
e.g.  When Bob submits a document with XYZ as an index value, automatically tell Joe that it is in and ask Joe to approve it.
When Joe approves it, tag it "Approved", and let Jim know.Depending on your requirements for document retention, archiving, e-discovery, etc.
the document management system can help you fulfill all of those automatically.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286265</id>
	<title>SharePoint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244632320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>NASA is a big user of SharePoint, strangely enough.  My coworkers run into their folks at conferences from time to time.
<br> <br>
I personally am ambivalent about SharePoint.  Its roots are in document management, so it seems to do that relatively well.  The publishing features are fairly nice as well.  I don't think it's the best system for making web sites, but it may some day get there.  Currently it feels like a 2.0 product (the magic rule is to never buy anything from Microsoft before 3.0).
<br> <br>
There are gotchas.  SharePoint is tightly coupled with your clients.  If everyone accessing the documents are using the latest version of Office, you'll be okay.  If not, you'll run into problems.  You may also need to throw a lot of hardware into SharePoint, as storing files inside of SQL has some built-in inefficiencies.
<br> <br>
Still, some of our users seem to love SharePoint, so it might be a good option for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA is a big user of SharePoint , strangely enough .
My coworkers run into their folks at conferences from time to time .
I personally am ambivalent about SharePoint .
Its roots are in document management , so it seems to do that relatively well .
The publishing features are fairly nice as well .
I do n't think it 's the best system for making web sites , but it may some day get there .
Currently it feels like a 2.0 product ( the magic rule is to never buy anything from Microsoft before 3.0 ) .
There are gotchas .
SharePoint is tightly coupled with your clients .
If everyone accessing the documents are using the latest version of Office , you 'll be okay .
If not , you 'll run into problems .
You may also need to throw a lot of hardware into SharePoint , as storing files inside of SQL has some built-in inefficiencies .
Still , some of our users seem to love SharePoint , so it might be a good option for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA is a big user of SharePoint, strangely enough.
My coworkers run into their folks at conferences from time to time.
I personally am ambivalent about SharePoint.
Its roots are in document management, so it seems to do that relatively well.
The publishing features are fairly nice as well.
I don't think it's the best system for making web sites, but it may some day get there.
Currently it feels like a 2.0 product (the magic rule is to never buy anything from Microsoft before 3.0).
There are gotchas.
SharePoint is tightly coupled with your clients.
If everyone accessing the documents are using the latest version of Office, you'll be okay.
If not, you'll run into problems.
You may also need to throw a lot of hardware into SharePoint, as storing files inside of SQL has some built-in inefficiencies.
Still, some of our users seem to love SharePoint, so it might be a good option for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286161</id>
	<title>Re:Alfresco or SharePoint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244631660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and I found an <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/073108-alfresco-open-source-sharepoint-clone.html" title="networkworld.com">article</a> [networkworld.com] backing up Alfresco pretty well:
<br> <br>"You can now stand up an Alfresco Labs server next to a SharePoint Server, and Office will not be able to tell the difference between the two," said John Newton, CTO of Alfresco. "But we are offering considerably more scale than SharePoint can deliver," he said.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and I found an article [ networkworld.com ] backing up Alfresco pretty well : " You can now stand up an Alfresco Labs server next to a SharePoint Server , and Office will not be able to tell the difference between the two , " said John Newton , CTO of Alfresco .
" But we are offering considerably more scale than SharePoint can deliver , " he said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and I found an article [networkworld.com] backing up Alfresco pretty well:
 "You can now stand up an Alfresco Labs server next to a SharePoint Server, and Office will not be able to tell the difference between the two," said John Newton, CTO of Alfresco.
"But we are offering considerably more scale than SharePoint can deliver," he said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288607</id>
	<title>Re:Garbage In Garbage Out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244648280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is bad advice.  Part of me wants to agree with it to keep things nice &amp; orderly, but in the end I think it would slow things down a lot.  You'll have to continually stop and ask yourself, "Where is the best place to put this and what should I call it exactly?".  There will be so many ambiguous situations that it'll just be frustrating and time consuming - not to mention the upfront time spent on reorganizing everything.</p><p>Just use something like a Google Search Appliance and get people to make a best effort organizing things in the future.</p><p>Trying to get everything perfect is a pipe dream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is bad advice .
Part of me wants to agree with it to keep things nice &amp; orderly , but in the end I think it would slow things down a lot .
You 'll have to continually stop and ask yourself , " Where is the best place to put this and what should I call it exactly ? " .
There will be so many ambiguous situations that it 'll just be frustrating and time consuming - not to mention the upfront time spent on reorganizing everything.Just use something like a Google Search Appliance and get people to make a best effort organizing things in the future.Trying to get everything perfect is a pipe dream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is bad advice.
Part of me wants to agree with it to keep things nice &amp; orderly, but in the end I think it would slow things down a lot.
You'll have to continually stop and ask yourself, "Where is the best place to put this and what should I call it exactly?".
There will be so many ambiguous situations that it'll just be frustrating and time consuming - not to mention the upfront time spent on reorganizing everything.Just use something like a Google Search Appliance and get people to make a best effort organizing things in the future.Trying to get everything perfect is a pipe dream.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288483</id>
	<title>Document/Content Management Systems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244647320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you are in over your head with this issue.  The short list of solutions will fail without clear backing from your executive management to provide "incentives" for users to help whatever new system you deploy be successful.</p><p>The flexibility of your user community will be a huge factor in this solution. The rigor with which documents contain useful metadata and whether the documents are specifically organized or just stored anywhere in the current system(s) will be factors too.</p><p>Here's the list of products that I'd start researching in order:<br>- Xerox Docushare<br>- Alfresco<br>- MS-Sharepoint<br>- Filenet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... something<br>- EMC/Documentum</p><p>There are other possibilities too, but if document versioning is required, be certain that capability is part of them at the start.</p><p>The simplicity of Docushare is simply amazing when compared to **all the other solutions**.  It is worth the first look for anyone dealing with CMS/DMS.<br>I've deployed Docushare, Alfresco, Sharepoint, and Documentum.  By far, users were  happiest with Docushare and this was back in 2000. I can only imagine the progress that's been made since.  It isn't the cheapest nor is it anywhere near the costs of the last two which usually require huge infrastructure and expensive per-user licenses.</p><p>Sharepoint had so many issues that it was worthless as a DMS. Heck, searching didn't work. It does have some other interesting features that can be useful in an open, trusting environment, but these are not useful when record level security is a requirement. It's been about a year since I saw sharepoint. It appears cheaper than Docushare and could be a good fit for trivial needs.</p><p>Like I said before, you are in over your head and need to hire a consultant to gather real requirements, learn your workflow, and help you select the best answer to trial in your environment. This isn't really the business that my company is in, but you can contact us at <a href="http://algoloma.com./" title="algoloma.com." rel="nofollow">http://algoloma.com./</a> [algoloma.com.] We aren't affiliated with any of the options listed above and these opinions are my own, not necessarily that of the company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are in over your head with this issue .
The short list of solutions will fail without clear backing from your executive management to provide " incentives " for users to help whatever new system you deploy be successful.The flexibility of your user community will be a huge factor in this solution .
The rigor with which documents contain useful metadata and whether the documents are specifically organized or just stored anywhere in the current system ( s ) will be factors too.Here 's the list of products that I 'd start researching in order : - Xerox Docushare- Alfresco- MS-Sharepoint- Filenet ... something- EMC/DocumentumThere are other possibilities too , but if document versioning is required , be certain that capability is part of them at the start.The simplicity of Docushare is simply amazing when compared to * * all the other solutions * * .
It is worth the first look for anyone dealing with CMS/DMS.I 've deployed Docushare , Alfresco , Sharepoint , and Documentum .
By far , users were happiest with Docushare and this was back in 2000 .
I can only imagine the progress that 's been made since .
It is n't the cheapest nor is it anywhere near the costs of the last two which usually require huge infrastructure and expensive per-user licenses.Sharepoint had so many issues that it was worthless as a DMS .
Heck , searching did n't work .
It does have some other interesting features that can be useful in an open , trusting environment , but these are not useful when record level security is a requirement .
It 's been about a year since I saw sharepoint .
It appears cheaper than Docushare and could be a good fit for trivial needs.Like I said before , you are in over your head and need to hire a consultant to gather real requirements , learn your workflow , and help you select the best answer to trial in your environment .
This is n't really the business that my company is in , but you can contact us at http : //algoloma.com./ [ algoloma.com .
] We are n't affiliated with any of the options listed above and these opinions are my own , not necessarily that of the company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are in over your head with this issue.
The short list of solutions will fail without clear backing from your executive management to provide "incentives" for users to help whatever new system you deploy be successful.The flexibility of your user community will be a huge factor in this solution.
The rigor with which documents contain useful metadata and whether the documents are specifically organized or just stored anywhere in the current system(s) will be factors too.Here's the list of products that I'd start researching in order:- Xerox Docushare- Alfresco- MS-Sharepoint- Filenet ... something- EMC/DocumentumThere are other possibilities too, but if document versioning is required, be certain that capability is part of them at the start.The simplicity of Docushare is simply amazing when compared to **all the other solutions**.
It is worth the first look for anyone dealing with CMS/DMS.I've deployed Docushare, Alfresco, Sharepoint, and Documentum.
By far, users were  happiest with Docushare and this was back in 2000.
I can only imagine the progress that's been made since.
It isn't the cheapest nor is it anywhere near the costs of the last two which usually require huge infrastructure and expensive per-user licenses.Sharepoint had so many issues that it was worthless as a DMS.
Heck, searching didn't work.
It does have some other interesting features that can be useful in an open, trusting environment, but these are not useful when record level security is a requirement.
It's been about a year since I saw sharepoint.
It appears cheaper than Docushare and could be a good fit for trivial needs.Like I said before, you are in over your head and need to hire a consultant to gather real requirements, learn your workflow, and help you select the best answer to trial in your environment.
This isn't really the business that my company is in, but you can contact us at http://algoloma.com./ [algoloma.com.
] We aren't affiliated with any of the options listed above and these opinions are my own, not necessarily that of the company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28304455</id>
	<title>Re:Document management software</title>
	<author>cmdean</author>
	<datestamp>1244742360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with document management software is that they require users to do some "extra" work filling in metadata. This fails. Generally users will not fill in more than title, adding keywords, short descriptions, file numbers are simply too much effort. When the metadata fails, the document management system also fails.</p><p>I suggest you first look at geting a good enterprise search engine. <a href="http://lucene.apache.org/" title="apache.org" rel="nofollow">Lucene</a> [apache.org](apache.org) is open source and free, <a href="http://www.recommind.com/products/mindserver\_search" title="recommind.com" rel="nofollow">MindServer</a> [recommind.com] (www.recommind.com) from Recommind is not but is amazing (I'm a happy client, not a shill).</p><p>If your users can find everything they need to do their work, who cares how badly it is sorted or filed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with document management software is that they require users to do some " extra " work filling in metadata .
This fails .
Generally users will not fill in more than title , adding keywords , short descriptions , file numbers are simply too much effort .
When the metadata fails , the document management system also fails.I suggest you first look at geting a good enterprise search engine .
Lucene [ apache.org ] ( apache.org ) is open source and free , MindServer [ recommind.com ] ( www.recommind.com ) from Recommind is not but is amazing ( I 'm a happy client , not a shill ) .If your users can find everything they need to do their work , who cares how badly it is sorted or filed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with document management software is that they require users to do some "extra" work filling in metadata.
This fails.
Generally users will not fill in more than title, adding keywords, short descriptions, file numbers are simply too much effort.
When the metadata fails, the document management system also fails.I suggest you first look at geting a good enterprise search engine.
Lucene [apache.org](apache.org) is open source and free, MindServer [recommind.com] (www.recommind.com) from Recommind is not but is amazing (I'm a happy client, not a shill).If your users can find everything they need to do their work, who cares how badly it is sorted or filed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286643</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244634480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the economic downturn, the national company I work for was looking to get away from SharePoint.  We have thousands of documents in it right now, and we're migrating the whole thing to Liferay Portal.  It's been pretty great so far and we're saving a bundle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the economic downturn , the national company I work for was looking to get away from SharePoint .
We have thousands of documents in it right now , and we 're migrating the whole thing to Liferay Portal .
It 's been pretty great so far and we 're saving a bundle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the economic downturn, the national company I work for was looking to get away from SharePoint.
We have thousands of documents in it right now, and we're migrating the whole thing to Liferay Portal.
It's been pretty great so far and we're saving a bundle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287443</id>
	<title>Re:Google to the rescue?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244639640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow - Slashdot users must all be on their meds this week.  Judging by the number of responses to that say to buy a google appliance, I judge the paranoia level to be closer to blue than red.  Where the hell is the open source insight?</p><p>I guess it's right here from good old Anonymous - ever hear of SOLR http://lucene.apache.org/solr/  ?  It's free, it's opensource and even if you hire a consulting company to set up an index of everything you have, you'll pay pennies on the dollar compared to a google appliance!  Plus - your soul will remain intact!</p><p>Just google for SOLR consultants and you'll find them, no problem<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow - Slashdot users must all be on their meds this week .
Judging by the number of responses to that say to buy a google appliance , I judge the paranoia level to be closer to blue than red .
Where the hell is the open source insight ? I guess it 's right here from good old Anonymous - ever hear of SOLR http : //lucene.apache.org/solr/ ?
It 's free , it 's opensource and even if you hire a consulting company to set up an index of everything you have , you 'll pay pennies on the dollar compared to a google appliance !
Plus - your soul will remain intact ! Just google for SOLR consultants and you 'll find them , no problem : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow - Slashdot users must all be on their meds this week.
Judging by the number of responses to that say to buy a google appliance, I judge the paranoia level to be closer to blue than red.
Where the hell is the open source insight?I guess it's right here from good old Anonymous - ever hear of SOLR http://lucene.apache.org/solr/  ?
It's free, it's opensource and even if you hire a consulting company to set up an index of everything you have, you'll pay pennies on the dollar compared to a google appliance!
Plus - your soul will remain intact!Just google for SOLR consultants and you'll find them, no problem :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288155</id>
	<title>Re:Answered your own question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244644800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I think you already know the answer.</i></p><p>Yes, and your next question should be what your retention and change-management requirements are like. At my last startup company we decided to combine the naming/numbering scheme with a central SVN repository. So all significant documents must be committed into SVN to share with others, and this retains version history and allows central backup and disaster-recovery. Combine this with branching policy and nightly commits of drafts to protect against users damaging or losing their scratch workspace on their laptops or desktops.</p><p>Getting users over the hump to use checkout/update/commit commands was well worth it in order to have sanity in documents, easy backups and replication (you can checkout a full working tree from the company LAN onto your laptop and update incrementally over VPN from remote work sites).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you already know the answer.Yes , and your next question should be what your retention and change-management requirements are like .
At my last startup company we decided to combine the naming/numbering scheme with a central SVN repository .
So all significant documents must be committed into SVN to share with others , and this retains version history and allows central backup and disaster-recovery .
Combine this with branching policy and nightly commits of drafts to protect against users damaging or losing their scratch workspace on their laptops or desktops.Getting users over the hump to use checkout/update/commit commands was well worth it in order to have sanity in documents , easy backups and replication ( you can checkout a full working tree from the company LAN onto your laptop and update incrementally over VPN from remote work sites ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you already know the answer.Yes, and your next question should be what your retention and change-management requirements are like.
At my last startup company we decided to combine the naming/numbering scheme with a central SVN repository.
So all significant documents must be committed into SVN to share with others, and this retains version history and allows central backup and disaster-recovery.
Combine this with branching policy and nightly commits of drafts to protect against users damaging or losing their scratch workspace on their laptops or desktops.Getting users over the hump to use checkout/update/commit commands was well worth it in order to have sanity in documents, easy backups and replication (you can checkout a full working tree from the company LAN onto your laptop and update incrementally over VPN from remote work sites).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287617</id>
	<title>Content Management Systems</title>
	<author>BentonMiller</author>
	<datestamp>1244640900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure it's been said by now, but you really should be looking at a content management system.  There are several vendors out there that sell various types of document control systems; Pilgrim, Master Control, I'm sure Oracle has something that does that.  There are also open source frameworks that you can develop in-house like Drupal.  All of those are online document management systems.  Users upload documents to them.  File naming conventions can be enforced as well as directory structure etc.  Many of them allow for document collaboration and approval.  It's a complex problem, and a valuable solution will take some serious thought and time.  I've heard some people use google documents, but for a company of your size I wouldn't recommend it.  In any case, folders on network drives are NOT the answer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure it 's been said by now , but you really should be looking at a content management system .
There are several vendors out there that sell various types of document control systems ; Pilgrim , Master Control , I 'm sure Oracle has something that does that .
There are also open source frameworks that you can develop in-house like Drupal .
All of those are online document management systems .
Users upload documents to them .
File naming conventions can be enforced as well as directory structure etc .
Many of them allow for document collaboration and approval .
It 's a complex problem , and a valuable solution will take some serious thought and time .
I 've heard some people use google documents , but for a company of your size I would n't recommend it .
In any case , folders on network drives are NOT the answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure it's been said by now, but you really should be looking at a content management system.
There are several vendors out there that sell various types of document control systems; Pilgrim, Master Control, I'm sure Oracle has something that does that.
There are also open source frameworks that you can develop in-house like Drupal.
All of those are online document management systems.
Users upload documents to them.
File naming conventions can be enforced as well as directory structure etc.
Many of them allow for document collaboration and approval.
It's a complex problem, and a valuable solution will take some serious thought and time.
I've heard some people use google documents, but for a company of your size I wouldn't recommend it.
In any case, folders on network drives are NOT the answer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28320513</id>
	<title>Re:Alfresco or SharePoint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244914140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, we evaluated Alfresco. The Sharepoint protocol and Webdav client for the Office suite both lacked SPNEGO support. Also the ACL support for some areas was horrible, requiring to edit manually XML files to set access rights to content. We abandoned Alfresco instantly because security was for us a requirement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , we evaluated Alfresco .
The Sharepoint protocol and Webdav client for the Office suite both lacked SPNEGO support .
Also the ACL support for some areas was horrible , requiring to edit manually XML files to set access rights to content .
We abandoned Alfresco instantly because security was for us a requirement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, we evaluated Alfresco.
The Sharepoint protocol and Webdav client for the Office suite both lacked SPNEGO support.
Also the ACL support for some areas was horrible, requiring to edit manually XML files to set access rights to content.
We abandoned Alfresco instantly because security was for us a requirement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288613</id>
	<title>librarian</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1244648340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>everyone is talking about document management software and search appliances.  You're going about it all wrong... </p><p> Hire a document management staff.</p><p>  Librarians.  Hot librarians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>everyone is talking about document management software and search appliances .
You 're going about it all wrong... Hire a document management staff .
Librarians. Hot librarians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>everyone is talking about document management software and search appliances.
You're going about it all wrong...  Hire a document management staff.
Librarians.  Hot librarians.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289099</id>
	<title>Contract a librarian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244653080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't at all mean to be pat or facetious with such a short answer.  But, seriously, you're asking the wrong crowd.  Librarians have masters degrees in answering just the question you're asking and it goes far beyond just books.  A couple of dozen hours of consulting contract with a good librarian can set you straight - whether you keep the samba store or you pony up for document management software.  Because if you have a strategy for organizing your information and execute on it you will reap benefits that don't show up on any productivity spreadsheet.  And a good librarian will tailor the system to how the people in your organization actually use the information.  Get an internship program going with a library school to have someone remotely do the cleaning and maintenance every once in a while.  Whole thing should be doable for a few grand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't at all mean to be pat or facetious with such a short answer .
But , seriously , you 're asking the wrong crowd .
Librarians have masters degrees in answering just the question you 're asking and it goes far beyond just books .
A couple of dozen hours of consulting contract with a good librarian can set you straight - whether you keep the samba store or you pony up for document management software .
Because if you have a strategy for organizing your information and execute on it you will reap benefits that do n't show up on any productivity spreadsheet .
And a good librarian will tailor the system to how the people in your organization actually use the information .
Get an internship program going with a library school to have someone remotely do the cleaning and maintenance every once in a while .
Whole thing should be doable for a few grand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't at all mean to be pat or facetious with such a short answer.
But, seriously, you're asking the wrong crowd.
Librarians have masters degrees in answering just the question you're asking and it goes far beyond just books.
A couple of dozen hours of consulting contract with a good librarian can set you straight - whether you keep the samba store or you pony up for document management software.
Because if you have a strategy for organizing your information and execute on it you will reap benefits that don't show up on any productivity spreadsheet.
And a good librarian will tailor the system to how the people in your organization actually use the information.
Get an internship program going with a library school to have someone remotely do the cleaning and maintenance every once in a while.
Whole thing should be doable for a few grand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286535</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244633880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. This is exactly what Sharepoint is designed to do. It is a powerful document management tool which offers functionality such as:</p><ul><li>Document Versioning</li><li>Metadata</li><li>Access Control</li><li>Search</li><li>Integration with Office products</li></ul><p>I</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
This is exactly what Sharepoint is designed to do .
It is a powerful document management tool which offers functionality such as : Document VersioningMetadataAccess ControlSearchIntegration with Office productsI</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
This is exactly what Sharepoint is designed to do.
It is a powerful document management tool which offers functionality such as:Document VersioningMetadataAccess ControlSearchIntegration with Office productsI</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289191</id>
	<title>There's technology for that</title>
	<author>sribe</author>
	<datestamp>1244654040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called a "database". You might want to look into it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called a " database " .
You might want to look into it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called a "database".
You might want to look into it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286629</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244634420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SharePoint has lots of issues - you cannot implement enterpise wide policies, you end up with multiple 'siloed' document stores, it has limited (well no workflow), it does not understand the relationship between objects, actors, artifacts, has no concept of lifecycle - it is a poor solution for a complex information environment - better to use Windchill Foundation from PTC (www.ptc.com) - does all the aforementioned. Even with accomplished tools you still have to get the 'mess' into a structure (taxonomy) that is meaningful. By the way NASA, Boeing, EADS, US DOD, etc, use this toolset. You would sit Windchill behind SharePoint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SharePoint has lots of issues - you can not implement enterpise wide policies , you end up with multiple 'siloed ' document stores , it has limited ( well no workflow ) , it does not understand the relationship between objects , actors , artifacts , has no concept of lifecycle - it is a poor solution for a complex information environment - better to use Windchill Foundation from PTC ( www.ptc.com ) - does all the aforementioned .
Even with accomplished tools you still have to get the 'mess ' into a structure ( taxonomy ) that is meaningful .
By the way NASA , Boeing , EADS , US DOD , etc , use this toolset .
You would sit Windchill behind SharePoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SharePoint has lots of issues - you cannot implement enterpise wide policies, you end up with multiple 'siloed' document stores, it has limited (well no workflow), it does not understand the relationship between objects, actors, artifacts, has no concept of lifecycle - it is a poor solution for a complex information environment - better to use Windchill Foundation from PTC (www.ptc.com) - does all the aforementioned.
Even with accomplished tools you still have to get the 'mess' into a structure (taxonomy) that is meaningful.
By the way NASA, Boeing, EADS, US DOD, etc, use this toolset.
You would sit Windchill behind SharePoint.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286115</id>
	<title>Odd that the next story...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244631480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Odd that the next story has a great idea for document management right in the summary...</p><p>Hadoop!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Odd that the next story has a great idea for document management right in the summary...Hadoop !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Odd that the next story has a great idea for document management right in the summary...Hadoop!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286061</id>
	<title>I work for a part 121 air carrier</title>
	<author>maric</author>
	<datestamp>1244631240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>we have extensive documentation and tracking needs. we use two sets of software for records and also keep a hard copy for long term storage.

For tracking parts on/off and hours in service, TSO TSI etc... we use TRAX Evo2

We scan all written paperwork into a database which is interfaced with via Alchemy.

This allows us to view the current status of all of our aircraft and their parts and track the paperwork for each action taken.  Alchemy has a browser interface and we use IE to access it.

this allows for a person to access the documentation from any of our stations and or offices internally on the network.

Both Alchemy and TRAX are acceptable to our local FSDO.

The hardware setup for this is not something I can shed light on as I do not get to play with computers that are ground bound.
hope that helps,
maric</htmltext>
<tokenext>we have extensive documentation and tracking needs .
we use two sets of software for records and also keep a hard copy for long term storage .
For tracking parts on/off and hours in service , TSO TSI etc... we use TRAX Evo2 We scan all written paperwork into a database which is interfaced with via Alchemy .
This allows us to view the current status of all of our aircraft and their parts and track the paperwork for each action taken .
Alchemy has a browser interface and we use IE to access it .
this allows for a person to access the documentation from any of our stations and or offices internally on the network .
Both Alchemy and TRAX are acceptable to our local FSDO .
The hardware setup for this is not something I can shed light on as I do not get to play with computers that are ground bound .
hope that helps , maric</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we have extensive documentation and tracking needs.
we use two sets of software for records and also keep a hard copy for long term storage.
For tracking parts on/off and hours in service, TSO TSI etc... we use TRAX Evo2

We scan all written paperwork into a database which is interfaced with via Alchemy.
This allows us to view the current status of all of our aircraft and their parts and track the paperwork for each action taken.
Alchemy has a browser interface and we use IE to access it.
this allows for a person to access the documentation from any of our stations and or offices internally on the network.
Both Alchemy and TRAX are acceptable to our local FSDO.
The hardware setup for this is not something I can shed light on as I do not get to play with computers that are ground bound.
hope that helps,
maric</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289573</id>
	<title>Re:Google to the rescue?</title>
	<author>SlashWombat</author>
	<datestamp>1244657640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I agree - although you might want to eventually implement a systematic method of naming/storing your documents.</p></div><p>While this seems like a good idea on the surface, it never seems to work very well. Even verbose file names seem to fail miserably, as the first 100 or so letters are always the same (IE:<b>"Project Tiger Sausage rocket module assembly - Ion injector harware part 1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...&gt; </b> <br> <br>Then there is the problem of getting all the employees to fully understand directory structures. Just look at your workmates screens to see how many people save everything on their desktop. (Yes, really a windows problem<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but so what.)<br> <br>I used to get a local WAN search engine, and let it index the entire site. Much more useful as it would find documents most people thought had disappeared years ago.<br> <br>Another approach would be to have a database that assigned file names for various projects and/or functions and mandate that this be the only way files are named for storage on the WAN. This, however, does not get around the thousands of files already stored in weird places using weird names! (Which is why an already indexed search engine works so well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... not only does it extract the file names, but also search on random (but significant) phrases are picked up within the scanned documents. (I used to use "MAMMA", it worked a treat!) http://www.mamma.com/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree - although you might want to eventually implement a systematic method of naming/storing your documents.While this seems like a good idea on the surface , it never seems to work very well .
Even verbose file names seem to fail miserably , as the first 100 or so letters are always the same ( IE : " Project Tiger Sausage rocket module assembly - Ion injector harware part 1 ... &gt; Then there is the problem of getting all the employees to fully understand directory structures .
Just look at your workmates screens to see how many people save everything on their desktop .
( Yes , really a windows problem ... but so what .
) I used to get a local WAN search engine , and let it index the entire site .
Much more useful as it would find documents most people thought had disappeared years ago .
Another approach would be to have a database that assigned file names for various projects and/or functions and mandate that this be the only way files are named for storage on the WAN .
This , however , does not get around the thousands of files already stored in weird places using weird names !
( Which is why an already indexed search engine works so well ... not only does it extract the file names , but also search on random ( but significant ) phrases are picked up within the scanned documents .
( I used to use " MAMMA " , it worked a treat !
) http : //www.mamma.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree - although you might want to eventually implement a systematic method of naming/storing your documents.While this seems like a good idea on the surface, it never seems to work very well.
Even verbose file names seem to fail miserably, as the first 100 or so letters are always the same (IE:"Project Tiger Sausage rocket module assembly - Ion injector harware part 1 ...&gt;   Then there is the problem of getting all the employees to fully understand directory structures.
Just look at your workmates screens to see how many people save everything on their desktop.
(Yes, really a windows problem ... but so what.
) I used to get a local WAN search engine, and let it index the entire site.
Much more useful as it would find documents most people thought had disappeared years ago.
Another approach would be to have a database that assigned file names for various projects and/or functions and mandate that this be the only way files are named for storage on the WAN.
This, however, does not get around the thousands of files already stored in weird places using weird names!
(Which is why an already indexed search engine works so well ... not only does it extract the file names, but also search on random (but significant) phrases are picked up within the scanned documents.
(I used to use "MAMMA", it worked a treat!
) http://www.mamma.com/
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288223</id>
	<title>Two paths</title>
	<author>jocknerd</author>
	<datestamp>1244645220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could set up a Document Management System like Alfresco or god-forbid, Sharepoint.  Or you could run OS X Server and let Spotlight index everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could set up a Document Management System like Alfresco or god-forbid , Sharepoint .
Or you could run OS X Server and let Spotlight index everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could set up a Document Management System like Alfresco or god-forbid, Sharepoint.
Or you could run OS X Server and let Spotlight index everything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285911</id>
	<title>Switch to Apple...</title>
	<author>Tibor the Hun</author>
	<datestamp>1244630760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I only partly jest, I know such a thing is damn near impossible to actually do, but in our Mac shop, such things are trivial. With one click of the mouse we enable spotlight searching on our Leopard AFP server and bam... all the clients have almost instantaneous search access to their docs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I only partly jest , I know such a thing is damn near impossible to actually do , but in our Mac shop , such things are trivial .
With one click of the mouse we enable spotlight searching on our Leopard AFP server and bam... all the clients have almost instantaneous search access to their docs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only partly jest, I know such a thing is damn near impossible to actually do, but in our Mac shop, such things are trivial.
With one click of the mouse we enable spotlight searching on our Leopard AFP server and bam... all the clients have almost instantaneous search access to their docs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285961</id>
	<title>Most big companies seem to use..</title>
	<author>fluffernutter</author>
	<datestamp>1244630940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>..something like Filenet or SAP.

Sound like you have big corporation needs, get a big corporation solution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>..something like Filenet or SAP .
Sound like you have big corporation needs , get a big corporation solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..something like Filenet or SAP.
Sound like you have big corporation needs, get a big corporation solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286199</id>
	<title>Not quite what you want, but maybe similar enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244631960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a previous job we dealt with the same problem but on a smaller scale: One main office with ~ 60 people with a branch office at quite some distance with ~ 6 people working there. In our case the problem wasn't documents but a combination of large profiles which had to be pumped through a VPN link over a rather narrow ADSL line at the branch office.</p><p>In that case we placed an offsite login server which contains all the information that was also present on the main server, with nightly delta synchronisation. Users still use the main server for work that requires write acces, but we were able to offer ~ 300 GB of data locally, instead of over the network.</p><p>We also placed a so-called WAFS device in both offices. This is basically a network optimizer which intercepts inefficient network traffic and wraps this data with compression in its own network protocol. Next to that it also caches network traffic which means that to some extent, often-referenced data / network traffic is also available locally. So far i've been positively surprised with the increased throughput we've shown (about a five-fold increase as compared to the old situation).</p><p>Lastly, we've been trying to push a version tracker system as a basis for documents, but hit a lot of walls with users whom preferred their 'known' samba enviroments over a versioning system. It does allow for you to re-design your data structure for documents and string together old/related documents in an interesting way.</p><p>Regardless, you'll have to rethink and restructure how you want to store documents, if only by using better directories and creating a 'method' which users will have to adhere to. And in the end you'll need some poor cheap students whom will have the pleasure of migrating all this data to your new system.</p><p>Just my 2 cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a previous job we dealt with the same problem but on a smaller scale : One main office with ~ 60 people with a branch office at quite some distance with ~ 6 people working there .
In our case the problem was n't documents but a combination of large profiles which had to be pumped through a VPN link over a rather narrow ADSL line at the branch office.In that case we placed an offsite login server which contains all the information that was also present on the main server , with nightly delta synchronisation .
Users still use the main server for work that requires write acces , but we were able to offer ~ 300 GB of data locally , instead of over the network.We also placed a so-called WAFS device in both offices .
This is basically a network optimizer which intercepts inefficient network traffic and wraps this data with compression in its own network protocol .
Next to that it also caches network traffic which means that to some extent , often-referenced data / network traffic is also available locally .
So far i 've been positively surprised with the increased throughput we 've shown ( about a five-fold increase as compared to the old situation ) .Lastly , we 've been trying to push a version tracker system as a basis for documents , but hit a lot of walls with users whom preferred their 'known ' samba enviroments over a versioning system .
It does allow for you to re-design your data structure for documents and string together old/related documents in an interesting way.Regardless , you 'll have to rethink and restructure how you want to store documents , if only by using better directories and creating a 'method ' which users will have to adhere to .
And in the end you 'll need some poor cheap students whom will have the pleasure of migrating all this data to your new system.Just my 2 cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a previous job we dealt with the same problem but on a smaller scale: One main office with ~ 60 people with a branch office at quite some distance with ~ 6 people working there.
In our case the problem wasn't documents but a combination of large profiles which had to be pumped through a VPN link over a rather narrow ADSL line at the branch office.In that case we placed an offsite login server which contains all the information that was also present on the main server, with nightly delta synchronisation.
Users still use the main server for work that requires write acces, but we were able to offer ~ 300 GB of data locally, instead of over the network.We also placed a so-called WAFS device in both offices.
This is basically a network optimizer which intercepts inefficient network traffic and wraps this data with compression in its own network protocol.
Next to that it also caches network traffic which means that to some extent, often-referenced data / network traffic is also available locally.
So far i've been positively surprised with the increased throughput we've shown (about a five-fold increase as compared to the old situation).Lastly, we've been trying to push a version tracker system as a basis for documents, but hit a lot of walls with users whom preferred their 'known' samba enviroments over a versioning system.
It does allow for you to re-design your data structure for documents and string together old/related documents in an interesting way.Regardless, you'll have to rethink and restructure how you want to store documents, if only by using better directories and creating a 'method' which users will have to adhere to.
And in the end you'll need some poor cheap students whom will have the pleasure of migrating all this data to your new system.Just my 2 cents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286043</id>
	<title>Institutional repository?</title>
	<author>sidb</author>
	<datestamp>1244631180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What kind of documents are they? If they're mostly text and you want versioning, the only drawback to subversion is getting people to learn the tools, but that might be too much.</p><p>If they're archival/static documents, an institutional repository could work. Something like DSpace isn't that hard to deploy and will provide basic archival and search features.</p><p>The middle ground between those two solutions is probably what you want, though. Everyone I work with uses SharePoint for that, and I hate recommending proprietary lock-in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of documents are they ?
If they 're mostly text and you want versioning , the only drawback to subversion is getting people to learn the tools , but that might be too much.If they 're archival/static documents , an institutional repository could work .
Something like DSpace is n't that hard to deploy and will provide basic archival and search features.The middle ground between those two solutions is probably what you want , though .
Everyone I work with uses SharePoint for that , and I hate recommending proprietary lock-in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of documents are they?
If they're mostly text and you want versioning, the only drawback to subversion is getting people to learn the tools, but that might be too much.If they're archival/static documents, an institutional repository could work.
Something like DSpace isn't that hard to deploy and will provide basic archival and search features.The middle ground between those two solutions is probably what you want, though.
Everyone I work with uses SharePoint for that, and I hate recommending proprietary lock-in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288885</id>
	<title>You're better off doing it yourself</title>
	<author>stoicio</author>
	<datestamp>1244651100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After looking at backup systems and maintaining libraries of data<br>our company found that we needed something that fit our needs.<br>We designed a system that worked and knuckled down to programming it.<br>We now have a search-able database of documents and files with attributes<br>as well as context from content for over 20 years of data and documents.<br>We can pretty much find any file in less than 5 minutes.<br>We could still make it better but we sure couldn't have done anything like<br>it C.O.T.S., Google included.</p><p>If Google failed tomorrow, where would your documents be then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After looking at backup systems and maintaining libraries of dataour company found that we needed something that fit our needs.We designed a system that worked and knuckled down to programming it.We now have a search-able database of documents and files with attributesas well as context from content for over 20 years of data and documents.We can pretty much find any file in less than 5 minutes.We could still make it better but we sure could n't have done anything likeit C.O.T.S. , Google included.If Google failed tomorrow , where would your documents be then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After looking at backup systems and maintaining libraries of dataour company found that we needed something that fit our needs.We designed a system that worked and knuckled down to programming it.We now have a search-able database of documents and files with attributesas well as context from content for over 20 years of data and documents.We can pretty much find any file in less than 5 minutes.We could still make it better but we sure couldn't have done anything likeit C.O.T.S., Google included.If Google failed tomorrow, where would your documents be then?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28290947</id>
	<title>Google? No. CMS!</title>
	<author>Elixon</author>
	<datestamp>1244718300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is just a search engine. They need document management.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) Correct me if it is not the thing called content management they need?</p><p>Import it into some CMS, sort it and make it available through the website secured by the password. We did something like this for <a href="http://www.olympus-ims.com/" title="olympus-ims.com">http://www.olympus-ims.com/</a> [olympus-ims.com] (but these are public documents) and it really contains thousands of documents (in dozen languages) together with all the document revisions it is over the hundred of thousands of documents. Easy to search, easy to navigate, easy to manage.</p><p>Simply: CMS is what you need. Do research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is just a search engine .
They need document management .
: - ) Correct me if it is not the thing called content management they need ? Import it into some CMS , sort it and make it available through the website secured by the password .
We did something like this for http : //www.olympus-ims.com/ [ olympus-ims.com ] ( but these are public documents ) and it really contains thousands of documents ( in dozen languages ) together with all the document revisions it is over the hundred of thousands of documents .
Easy to search , easy to navigate , easy to manage.Simply : CMS is what you need .
Do research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is just a search engine.
They need document management.
:-) Correct me if it is not the thing called content management they need?Import it into some CMS, sort it and make it available through the website secured by the password.
We did something like this for http://www.olympus-ims.com/ [olympus-ims.com] (but these are public documents) and it really contains thousands of documents (in dozen languages) together with all the document revisions it is over the hundred of thousands of documents.
Easy to search, easy to navigate, easy to manage.Simply: CMS is what you need.
Do research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287161</id>
	<title>SharePoint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244637600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 with search capabilities would be a wonderful place to store all of this stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 with search capabilities would be a wonderful place to store all of this stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 with search capabilities would be a wonderful place to store all of this stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286723</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244634840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alfresco is likely your answer. We dumped the unbelievably expensive FileNet and jumped onboard with an Open Source solution. It can be done for free, but likely your company, like mine, would opt for paying a small license fee for support benefits. See http://www.alfresco.com/index-b1.html.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alfresco is likely your answer .
We dumped the unbelievably expensive FileNet and jumped onboard with an Open Source solution .
It can be done for free , but likely your company , like mine , would opt for paying a small license fee for support benefits .
See http : //www.alfresco.com/index-b1.html .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alfresco is likely your answer.
We dumped the unbelievably expensive FileNet and jumped onboard with an Open Source solution.
It can be done for free, but likely your company, like mine, would opt for paying a small license fee for support benefits.
See http://www.alfresco.com/index-b1.html.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286963</id>
	<title>file naming conventions and folders</title>
	<author>PhantomHarlock</author>
	<datestamp>1244636280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use the 'job' system, which I learned from working at Digital Domain (the Visual Effects Company) and then passed it on to the Aerospace company where I now work.</p><p>Effects companies deal with enormous amounts of data, and many different versions of a shot as well as all the elements that make up that shot, along with other data such as project settings files from software used in the making of that shot.  They had a very specific file naming system to keep that all organized, and it was referred to as the job system, because first and foremost everything was logically separated by project.</p><p>How that has translated for me into the Aerospace field is at the root of the main drive share, there are two primary folders, job and departments.   Departments contains generic documents for each department such as forms, standards, etc.</p><p>The 'job' folder contains several categories of jobs or projects, such as vehicles, engines, pumps, etc.</p><p>Inside those are folders with the project name.    Inside each project folder is a series of folders for different data types, such as solidworks, reports, proposals, documentation images, etc.</p><p>File naming:</p><p>File naming should be consistent, and I always start my own files with the date with year first, because I do not trust meta-data one single iota.   I have had dates wiped out when a backup system kept a backup, but did not preserve the file creation / modify date on copy.</p><p>After that it is the thing, then the version.</p><p>So 09-06-10\_widget\_v01.sldprt</p><p>version two should be exactly the same, with the number iterated up.  There should never be a document named something\_FINAL because you always end up with FINAL\_FINAL\_FINAL etc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Now, as you probably know, the difficulty is enforcing a uniform standard when people are busy doing actual work.   Things get sloppy, things get messy.  You have to keep up after people, and policing stuff like this is not fun.  At Digital Domain is was an urgent necessity for everyone to use the standard and there was automated software that relied upon it.  At the aerospace company, I gave up years ago trying to enforce a perfect policy.  Now, people generally follow the example I set to a point where you can easily find things.   When I first got to this company, when it was really small, all files were (seriously) piled nearly in a single folder.   This was when the company was very small, but it was already a disaster and it was impossible to find anything.  People were used to working on their own computer and did not have a concept of a shared file server, at least not in a modern sense.</p><p>Now you can just swatch down the left pane in windows explorer and get what you want very quickly.</p><p>This system is designed to use the left pane (lots of folders for organization) and people who were used to the Windows 3.1 way of double clicking through folders without the left pane had to change their (awful) habits.  That was the biggest concession among the old school users.</p><p>The trick is also not to over-do the nested folders.  Just enough to keep it nice and tidy.</p><p>Every once in a long while you run into a file that really wants to belong to several folders, and that's what shortcuts are for.  Even if the shortcut gets broken you can look at the shortcut file to see what it originally pointed to, and you can probably find it that way.</p><p>At home I use the same methodology to archive 30,000 photographs.  I can find anything in an instant by expanding folder icons.   When that fails, plain old windows search is able to turn up what I am looking for, in those rare instances.</p><p>I have always been against anything that 'collects' your files into meta data, such as iTunes, or various photo editing programs.  It's a big mess because one day that software won't be around and your files will be a mess.</p><p>Even my MP3s are organized by genre/album/1.song.MP3.   I just drag album folders or songs into Winamp and I am off and running as my own DJ.  I don't use a media organize</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use the 'job ' system , which I learned from working at Digital Domain ( the Visual Effects Company ) and then passed it on to the Aerospace company where I now work.Effects companies deal with enormous amounts of data , and many different versions of a shot as well as all the elements that make up that shot , along with other data such as project settings files from software used in the making of that shot .
They had a very specific file naming system to keep that all organized , and it was referred to as the job system , because first and foremost everything was logically separated by project.How that has translated for me into the Aerospace field is at the root of the main drive share , there are two primary folders , job and departments .
Departments contains generic documents for each department such as forms , standards , etc.The 'job ' folder contains several categories of jobs or projects , such as vehicles , engines , pumps , etc.Inside those are folders with the project name .
Inside each project folder is a series of folders for different data types , such as solidworks , reports , proposals , documentation images , etc.File naming : File naming should be consistent , and I always start my own files with the date with year first , because I do not trust meta-data one single iota .
I have had dates wiped out when a backup system kept a backup , but did not preserve the file creation / modify date on copy.After that it is the thing , then the version.So 09-06-10 \ _widget \ _v01.sldprtversion two should be exactly the same , with the number iterated up .
There should never be a document named something \ _FINAL because you always end up with FINAL \ _FINAL \ _FINAL etc .
: ) Now , as you probably know , the difficulty is enforcing a uniform standard when people are busy doing actual work .
Things get sloppy , things get messy .
You have to keep up after people , and policing stuff like this is not fun .
At Digital Domain is was an urgent necessity for everyone to use the standard and there was automated software that relied upon it .
At the aerospace company , I gave up years ago trying to enforce a perfect policy .
Now , people generally follow the example I set to a point where you can easily find things .
When I first got to this company , when it was really small , all files were ( seriously ) piled nearly in a single folder .
This was when the company was very small , but it was already a disaster and it was impossible to find anything .
People were used to working on their own computer and did not have a concept of a shared file server , at least not in a modern sense.Now you can just swatch down the left pane in windows explorer and get what you want very quickly.This system is designed to use the left pane ( lots of folders for organization ) and people who were used to the Windows 3.1 way of double clicking through folders without the left pane had to change their ( awful ) habits .
That was the biggest concession among the old school users.The trick is also not to over-do the nested folders .
Just enough to keep it nice and tidy.Every once in a long while you run into a file that really wants to belong to several folders , and that 's what shortcuts are for .
Even if the shortcut gets broken you can look at the shortcut file to see what it originally pointed to , and you can probably find it that way.At home I use the same methodology to archive 30,000 photographs .
I can find anything in an instant by expanding folder icons .
When that fails , plain old windows search is able to turn up what I am looking for , in those rare instances.I have always been against anything that 'collects ' your files into meta data , such as iTunes , or various photo editing programs .
It 's a big mess because one day that software wo n't be around and your files will be a mess.Even my MP3s are organized by genre/album/1.song.MP3 .
I just drag album folders or songs into Winamp and I am off and running as my own DJ .
I do n't use a media organize</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use the 'job' system, which I learned from working at Digital Domain (the Visual Effects Company) and then passed it on to the Aerospace company where I now work.Effects companies deal with enormous amounts of data, and many different versions of a shot as well as all the elements that make up that shot, along with other data such as project settings files from software used in the making of that shot.
They had a very specific file naming system to keep that all organized, and it was referred to as the job system, because first and foremost everything was logically separated by project.How that has translated for me into the Aerospace field is at the root of the main drive share, there are two primary folders, job and departments.
Departments contains generic documents for each department such as forms, standards, etc.The 'job' folder contains several categories of jobs or projects, such as vehicles, engines, pumps, etc.Inside those are folders with the project name.
Inside each project folder is a series of folders for different data types, such as solidworks, reports, proposals, documentation images, etc.File naming:File naming should be consistent, and I always start my own files with the date with year first, because I do not trust meta-data one single iota.
I have had dates wiped out when a backup system kept a backup, but did not preserve the file creation / modify date on copy.After that it is the thing, then the version.So 09-06-10\_widget\_v01.sldprtversion two should be exactly the same, with the number iterated up.
There should never be a document named something\_FINAL because you always end up with FINAL\_FINAL\_FINAL etc.
:)Now, as you probably know, the difficulty is enforcing a uniform standard when people are busy doing actual work.
Things get sloppy, things get messy.
You have to keep up after people, and policing stuff like this is not fun.
At Digital Domain is was an urgent necessity for everyone to use the standard and there was automated software that relied upon it.
At the aerospace company, I gave up years ago trying to enforce a perfect policy.
Now, people generally follow the example I set to a point where you can easily find things.
When I first got to this company, when it was really small, all files were (seriously) piled nearly in a single folder.
This was when the company was very small, but it was already a disaster and it was impossible to find anything.
People were used to working on their own computer and did not have a concept of a shared file server, at least not in a modern sense.Now you can just swatch down the left pane in windows explorer and get what you want very quickly.This system is designed to use the left pane (lots of folders for organization) and people who were used to the Windows 3.1 way of double clicking through folders without the left pane had to change their (awful) habits.
That was the biggest concession among the old school users.The trick is also not to over-do the nested folders.
Just enough to keep it nice and tidy.Every once in a long while you run into a file that really wants to belong to several folders, and that's what shortcuts are for.
Even if the shortcut gets broken you can look at the shortcut file to see what it originally pointed to, and you can probably find it that way.At home I use the same methodology to archive 30,000 photographs.
I can find anything in an instant by expanding folder icons.
When that fails, plain old windows search is able to turn up what I am looking for, in those rare instances.I have always been against anything that 'collects' your files into meta data, such as iTunes, or various photo editing programs.
It's a big mess because one day that software won't be around and your files will be a mess.Even my MP3s are organized by genre/album/1.song.MP3.
I just drag album folders or songs into Winamp and I am off and running as my own DJ.
I don't use a media organize</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287797</id>
	<title>It's all about Taxonomy and Metadata</title>
	<author>TrekBody</author>
	<datestamp>1244642220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever the solution, you have to get staff to declare what it is on the front end.  It's not all about the technology.  I see some of the benefits of Sharepoint, but depending on your audience (tech-savvy or not) it may become a training issue.  Prepare for change management.</p><p>What I like about Sharepoint is the Office integration, the improvements over the last few years, document history (versions), and mostly, the ability to require metadata.  If you have a taxonomy of topics, it will make it much easier to create a search appliance that can find what people are looking for.   You may be forced to look at auto-classification if you can't get staff to do it, or hire knowledge managers (librarians) to properly catalogue.  Trouble for us is getting to agreed-upon taxonomies and hierarchies across divisions (I'm in the knowledge management trenches here).</p><p>A good way to start might be Sharepoint repositories, require a topic field, seed it with however many topics you can come up with, and leave an OTHER field so you can collect what you have not organized.  If you analyze what comes into the OTHER topic, you may keep adding new topics.</p><p>Find the logical buckets to start search before they think about searching too.  Does your staff only care about 1 project at a time, break it up into project searches.  Basically offer them one level of selection before they get to search - it may make things easier (if you are structured that way).  They may look for something from a particular function - Marketing search vs. Operations search.</p><p>Also, sharepoint can leverage active directory info, so you may be able to get some metadata automation (Docs from sales staff vs. R&amp;D, etc.)</p><p>Hope these points help.  Contact me if you need more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever the solution , you have to get staff to declare what it is on the front end .
It 's not all about the technology .
I see some of the benefits of Sharepoint , but depending on your audience ( tech-savvy or not ) it may become a training issue .
Prepare for change management.What I like about Sharepoint is the Office integration , the improvements over the last few years , document history ( versions ) , and mostly , the ability to require metadata .
If you have a taxonomy of topics , it will make it much easier to create a search appliance that can find what people are looking for .
You may be forced to look at auto-classification if you ca n't get staff to do it , or hire knowledge managers ( librarians ) to properly catalogue .
Trouble for us is getting to agreed-upon taxonomies and hierarchies across divisions ( I 'm in the knowledge management trenches here ) .A good way to start might be Sharepoint repositories , require a topic field , seed it with however many topics you can come up with , and leave an OTHER field so you can collect what you have not organized .
If you analyze what comes into the OTHER topic , you may keep adding new topics.Find the logical buckets to start search before they think about searching too .
Does your staff only care about 1 project at a time , break it up into project searches .
Basically offer them one level of selection before they get to search - it may make things easier ( if you are structured that way ) .
They may look for something from a particular function - Marketing search vs. Operations search.Also , sharepoint can leverage active directory info , so you may be able to get some metadata automation ( Docs from sales staff vs. R&amp;D , etc .
) Hope these points help .
Contact me if you need more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever the solution, you have to get staff to declare what it is on the front end.
It's not all about the technology.
I see some of the benefits of Sharepoint, but depending on your audience (tech-savvy or not) it may become a training issue.
Prepare for change management.What I like about Sharepoint is the Office integration, the improvements over the last few years, document history (versions), and mostly, the ability to require metadata.
If you have a taxonomy of topics, it will make it much easier to create a search appliance that can find what people are looking for.
You may be forced to look at auto-classification if you can't get staff to do it, or hire knowledge managers (librarians) to properly catalogue.
Trouble for us is getting to agreed-upon taxonomies and hierarchies across divisions (I'm in the knowledge management trenches here).A good way to start might be Sharepoint repositories, require a topic field, seed it with however many topics you can come up with, and leave an OTHER field so you can collect what you have not organized.
If you analyze what comes into the OTHER topic, you may keep adding new topics.Find the logical buckets to start search before they think about searching too.
Does your staff only care about 1 project at a time, break it up into project searches.
Basically offer them one level of selection before they get to search - it may make things easier (if you are structured that way).
They may look for something from a particular function - Marketing search vs. Operations search.Also, sharepoint can leverage active directory info, so you may be able to get some metadata automation (Docs from sales staff vs. R&amp;D, etc.
)Hope these points help.
Contact me if you need more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289869</id>
	<title>Two words</title>
	<author>jevring</author>
	<datestamp>1244660460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Search engine</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Search engine</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Search engine</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287195</id>
	<title>Re:WebDav</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244637840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The weird characters could easily be taken care of by something like Ant Renamer (even supports RegEx). Just replace the weird ones with an underscore or some other suitable character.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The weird characters could easily be taken care of by something like Ant Renamer ( even supports RegEx ) .
Just replace the weird ones with an underscore or some other suitable character .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The weird characters could easily be taken care of by something like Ant Renamer (even supports RegEx).
Just replace the weird ones with an underscore or some other suitable character.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288215</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244645160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>SharePoint? Oh my God no! SharePoint stores files as BLOBs in the database - fine if you have a small number of docs, but not if you have a lot of them.  The MS fix for this is to tie SharePoint to "external storage". Read "a real DMS".

Go find an enterprise DMS, with plenty of indexes available so you can build good taxonomies.  IBM, Oracle, OpenText, Interwoven - they all make good DMS systems, frequently with web front ends, and full text indexing too. You'll invest time and money in the setup and the movement of documents into the system, but in the long run you'll be able to search for and find information. And that's the idea, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>SharePoint ?
Oh my God no !
SharePoint stores files as BLOBs in the database - fine if you have a small number of docs , but not if you have a lot of them .
The MS fix for this is to tie SharePoint to " external storage " .
Read " a real DMS " .
Go find an enterprise DMS , with plenty of indexes available so you can build good taxonomies .
IBM , Oracle , OpenText , Interwoven - they all make good DMS systems , frequently with web front ends , and full text indexing too .
You 'll invest time and money in the setup and the movement of documents into the system , but in the long run you 'll be able to search for and find information .
And that 's the idea , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SharePoint?
Oh my God no!
SharePoint stores files as BLOBs in the database - fine if you have a small number of docs, but not if you have a lot of them.
The MS fix for this is to tie SharePoint to "external storage".
Read "a real DMS".
Go find an enterprise DMS, with plenty of indexes available so you can build good taxonomies.
IBM, Oracle, OpenText, Interwoven - they all make good DMS systems, frequently with web front ends, and full text indexing too.
You'll invest time and money in the setup and the movement of documents into the system, but in the long run you'll be able to search for and find information.
And that's the idea, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286603</id>
	<title>LaserFiche</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1244634240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're using a Win3.1 app called LaserFiche on XP with &gt; 250,000 documents and it's lightning fast, works with TIFF files and PDF and probably more. Includes file and folder permissions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're using a Win3.1 app called LaserFiche on XP with &gt; 250,000 documents and it 's lightning fast , works with TIFF files and PDF and probably more .
Includes file and folder permissions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're using a Win3.1 app called LaserFiche on XP with &gt; 250,000 documents and it's lightning fast, works with TIFF files and PDF and probably more.
Includes file and folder permissions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286165</id>
	<title>try this software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244631660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>www.Mindwrap.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>www.Mindwrap.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>www.Mindwrap.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288785</id>
	<title>Re:Google to the rescue?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244650200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Laserfiche.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Laserfiche .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laserfiche.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286677</id>
	<title>NetDocuments</title>
	<author>bradvoy</author>
	<datestamp>1244634600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take a look at <a href="http://www.netdocuments.com/" title="netdocuments.com" rel="nofollow">NetDocuments</a> [netdocuments.com].  It's a SaaS (Software as a Service) document management system.  It handles millions of documents, can be accessed from anywhere, and is relatively inexpensive compared to maintaining your own servers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at NetDocuments [ netdocuments.com ] .
It 's a SaaS ( Software as a Service ) document management system .
It handles millions of documents , can be accessed from anywhere , and is relatively inexpensive compared to maintaining your own servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at NetDocuments [netdocuments.com].
It's a SaaS (Software as a Service) document management system.
It handles millions of documents, can be accessed from anywhere, and is relatively inexpensive compared to maintaining your own servers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287283</id>
	<title>Very simple setup</title>
	<author>massons</author>
	<datestamp>1244638620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Simple.. use CVS.  Documentation is centralized and de-centralized.  You have versioning, log, comment, and overall this... it's free</htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple.. use CVS .
Documentation is centralized and de-centralized .
You have versioning , log , comment , and overall this... it 's free</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple.. use CVS.
Documentation is centralized and de-centralized.
You have versioning, log, comment, and overall this... it's free</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287401</id>
	<title>Re:Knowledge Tree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244639460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those who are wary of open source install docs or hardware procurement can buy an appliance pre-installed with Knowledge Tree (or even other open source apps) here:</p><p>http://www.networktoaster.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those who are wary of open source install docs or hardware procurement can buy an appliance pre-installed with Knowledge Tree ( or even other open source apps ) here : http : //www.networktoaster.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those who are wary of open source install docs or hardware procurement can buy an appliance pre-installed with Knowledge Tree (or even other open source apps) here:http://www.networktoaster.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28290313</id>
	<title>Suggestion - A proper Content Management System</title>
	<author>NacMacFeegle</author>
	<datestamp>1244752140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some of the suggestions above says that you should just chuck everything haphazardly into a big pile and then use search engines to trawl the whole mess. I don't buy that. Instead, (like some others) I'd suggest a proper content management system such as the ones from <a href="http://www.alfresco.com/" title="alfresco.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.alfresco.com/</a> [alfresco.com], <a href="http://www.interwoven.com/" title="interwoven.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.interwoven.com/</a> [interwoven.com] or <a href="http://www.hummingbird.com/" title="hummingbird.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.hummingbird.com/</a> [hummingbird.com]. <br> <br>The reason for this suggestion is that I know that these systems are being used by organisations which handle, as OP said, hundreds of thousands of documents and which have satellite offices (e.g. large multinational lawfirms). They provide several benefits such as the possibility to structure projects, have both project related documents <b>and</b> e-mails saved and indexed in the project folders, allows for searching and proper document version chains (meaning that you can revert to older versions of documents if some klutz breaks a newer version). <br> <br>Of course, this means quite an investment, a learning curve for everyone at your company and, most likely, the hiring of an individual with experience of the chosen system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of the suggestions above says that you should just chuck everything haphazardly into a big pile and then use search engines to trawl the whole mess .
I do n't buy that .
Instead , ( like some others ) I 'd suggest a proper content management system such as the ones from http : //www.alfresco.com/ [ alfresco.com ] , http : //www.interwoven.com/ [ interwoven.com ] or http : //www.hummingbird.com/ [ hummingbird.com ] .
The reason for this suggestion is that I know that these systems are being used by organisations which handle , as OP said , hundreds of thousands of documents and which have satellite offices ( e.g .
large multinational lawfirms ) .
They provide several benefits such as the possibility to structure projects , have both project related documents and e-mails saved and indexed in the project folders , allows for searching and proper document version chains ( meaning that you can revert to older versions of documents if some klutz breaks a newer version ) .
Of course , this means quite an investment , a learning curve for everyone at your company and , most likely , the hiring of an individual with experience of the chosen system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of the suggestions above says that you should just chuck everything haphazardly into a big pile and then use search engines to trawl the whole mess.
I don't buy that.
Instead, (like some others) I'd suggest a proper content management system such as the ones from http://www.alfresco.com/ [alfresco.com], http://www.interwoven.com/ [interwoven.com] or http://www.hummingbird.com/ [hummingbird.com].
The reason for this suggestion is that I know that these systems are being used by organisations which handle, as OP said, hundreds of thousands of documents and which have satellite offices (e.g.
large multinational lawfirms).
They provide several benefits such as the possibility to structure projects, have both project related documents and e-mails saved and indexed in the project folders, allows for searching and proper document version chains (meaning that you can revert to older versions of documents if some klutz breaks a newer version).
Of course, this means quite an investment, a learning curve for everyone at your company and, most likely, the hiring of an individual with experience of the chosen system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286593</id>
	<title>DMS</title>
	<author>jjshoe</author>
	<datestamp>1244634180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DMS -- <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document\_management\_system" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document\_management\_system</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DMS -- http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document \ _management \ _system [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DMS -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document\_management\_system [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28294241</id>
	<title>three words...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244736840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...lotus notes teamrooms</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...lotus notes teamrooms</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...lotus notes teamrooms</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288341</id>
	<title>Alfresco</title>
	<author>brassmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1244646000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A document management system is a must for that many documents. Check out Alfresco. It's open source and as such isn't outrageously expensive like it's competitors. If setup seems too daunting for you, check out tsgrp.com. Technology Services Group is a consulting firm in Chicago with experience working with Alfresco and may be able to make this transition easier for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A document management system is a must for that many documents .
Check out Alfresco .
It 's open source and as such is n't outrageously expensive like it 's competitors .
If setup seems too daunting for you , check out tsgrp.com .
Technology Services Group is a consulting firm in Chicago with experience working with Alfresco and may be able to make this transition easier for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A document management system is a must for that many documents.
Check out Alfresco.
It's open source and as such isn't outrageously expensive like it's competitors.
If setup seems too daunting for you, check out tsgrp.com.
Technology Services Group is a consulting firm in Chicago with experience working with Alfresco and may be able to make this transition easier for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286551</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244633940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree 110\%.  Sharepoint is the best document management solution ever created.  I'll bet my chair on it.</p><p>--<br>steveb@microsoft.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree 110 \ % .
Sharepoint is the best document management solution ever created .
I 'll bet my chair on it.--steveb @ microsoft.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree 110\%.
Sharepoint is the best document management solution ever created.
I'll bet my chair on it.--steveb@microsoft.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288925</id>
	<title>naming convention, DAM, archive</title>
	<author>capsteve</author>
	<datestamp>1244651460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>establish a naming convention. come up with a few simple rules regarding:<br>
file names<br>
directory names<br>
customer names<br>
job/project names<br>
department names<br>
limit the number of total allowable characters in a file name, and publish and distribute your rules in an easy to follow cheatsheet. for example:<br>
all files for client <b>"Smith Inc."</b> reside in a directory named<b> "SI"</b> <br>
all files for Smith Inc for project <b>"Widget X"</b> reside in a subdirectory names <b>"WX"</b> <br>
all files for Smith Inc for project Widget X have a unique number generated by you accounting system<br>
all files generated by the sales department need to have <b>"S"</b> after the project number<br>
enforce using file name extensions for all file types<br>
so a powerpoint deck created by the sales department for a sales pitch to smith inc for Project X with an internal job number of 1234 would be named <b> <i>"SIWX1234\_S.ppt".</i></b>  <br>
a well structured naming convention with simple but rigid rules will allow users to navigate a file system to find files and identify wrongly filed assets.<br>
<br>
<br>
invest in a digital asset management system that with a database backend.<br>
there are many DAM systems available both commercially and opensource.<br>
utilize one that has a web front end, so you can enforce consistancy in end user experience(as opposed to a fat client
embed metadata into the files themselves in XML format thru the DAM if possible.<br>
<br>
<br>
based on the naming convention you've established and the DAM system you've deployed, you should be able to track when a file was created, modified, and last accessed. establish rules regarding when a file moves from disk to tape, and from online tape(in jukebox) to offline tape(out of jukebox), to cold storage(offsite).</htmltext>
<tokenext>establish a naming convention .
come up with a few simple rules regarding : file names directory names customer names job/project names department names limit the number of total allowable characters in a file name , and publish and distribute your rules in an easy to follow cheatsheet .
for example : all files for client " Smith Inc. " reside in a directory named " SI " all files for Smith Inc for project " Widget X " reside in a subdirectory names " WX " all files for Smith Inc for project Widget X have a unique number generated by you accounting system all files generated by the sales department need to have " S " after the project number enforce using file name extensions for all file types so a powerpoint deck created by the sales department for a sales pitch to smith inc for Project X with an internal job number of 1234 would be named " SIWX1234 \ _S.ppt " .
a well structured naming convention with simple but rigid rules will allow users to navigate a file system to find files and identify wrongly filed assets .
invest in a digital asset management system that with a database backend .
there are many DAM systems available both commercially and opensource .
utilize one that has a web front end , so you can enforce consistancy in end user experience ( as opposed to a fat client embed metadata into the files themselves in XML format thru the DAM if possible .
based on the naming convention you 've established and the DAM system you 've deployed , you should be able to track when a file was created , modified , and last accessed .
establish rules regarding when a file moves from disk to tape , and from online tape ( in jukebox ) to offline tape ( out of jukebox ) , to cold storage ( offsite ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>establish a naming convention.
come up with a few simple rules regarding:
file names
directory names
customer names
job/project names
department names
limit the number of total allowable characters in a file name, and publish and distribute your rules in an easy to follow cheatsheet.
for example:
all files for client "Smith Inc." reside in a directory named "SI" 
all files for Smith Inc for project "Widget X" reside in a subdirectory names "WX" 
all files for Smith Inc for project Widget X have a unique number generated by you accounting system
all files generated by the sales department need to have "S" after the project number
enforce using file name extensions for all file types
so a powerpoint deck created by the sales department for a sales pitch to smith inc for Project X with an internal job number of 1234 would be named  "SIWX1234\_S.ppt".
a well structured naming convention with simple but rigid rules will allow users to navigate a file system to find files and identify wrongly filed assets.
invest in a digital asset management system that with a database backend.
there are many DAM systems available both commercially and opensource.
utilize one that has a web front end, so you can enforce consistancy in end user experience(as opposed to a fat client
embed metadata into the files themselves in XML format thru the DAM if possible.
based on the naming convention you've established and the DAM system you've deployed, you should be able to track when a file was created, modified, and last accessed.
establish rules regarding when a file moves from disk to tape, and from online tape(in jukebox) to offline tape(out of jukebox), to cold storage(offsite).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28302843</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?  Doesn't scale</title>
	<author>slashqwerty</author>
	<datestamp>1244727360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where I work we wrote our own Document Management System that integrates with the rest of our systems.  The integration has proven quite beneficial.  Off-the-shelf systems can integrate but it generally doesn't work very well.  Anyway, we were looking at using SharePoint as our back-end to get the indexing support and improved versioning.  What we discovered is that SharePoint just doesn't scale very well.  When you get into the hundreds of thousands of documents it has problems.  When you get into the tens of millions it has major problems.

<br> <br>Given that the submitter already needs to file 500,000 documents I question if SharePoint is feasible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where I work we wrote our own Document Management System that integrates with the rest of our systems .
The integration has proven quite beneficial .
Off-the-shelf systems can integrate but it generally does n't work very well .
Anyway , we were looking at using SharePoint as our back-end to get the indexing support and improved versioning .
What we discovered is that SharePoint just does n't scale very well .
When you get into the hundreds of thousands of documents it has problems .
When you get into the tens of millions it has major problems .
Given that the submitter already needs to file 500,000 documents I question if SharePoint is feasible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where I work we wrote our own Document Management System that integrates with the rest of our systems.
The integration has proven quite beneficial.
Off-the-shelf systems can integrate but it generally doesn't work very well.
Anyway, we were looking at using SharePoint as our back-end to get the indexing support and improved versioning.
What we discovered is that SharePoint just doesn't scale very well.
When you get into the hundreds of thousands of documents it has problems.
When you get into the tens of millions it has major problems.
Given that the submitter already needs to file 500,000 documents I question if SharePoint is feasible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286077</id>
	<title>windows Terminal Server</title>
	<author>smalltimecrime</author>
	<datestamp>1244631360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The OP did not mention exactly how many remote branches or computers need to access the documents at once, however, windows Terminal Server licenses
aren't too expensive and the remote desktop experience is silky smooth.

Also the documents would all reside on a central server raid array or NAS device and never need to travel over the internet to remote sites.

This would also free up massive amounts of bandwidth over the VPN, considering TS just needs an internet connection and uses SSL encryption.

(although I don't know what you would even need a VPN for after making this conversion)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The OP did not mention exactly how many remote branches or computers need to access the documents at once , however , windows Terminal Server licenses are n't too expensive and the remote desktop experience is silky smooth .
Also the documents would all reside on a central server raid array or NAS device and never need to travel over the internet to remote sites .
This would also free up massive amounts of bandwidth over the VPN , considering TS just needs an internet connection and uses SSL encryption .
( although I do n't know what you would even need a VPN for after making this conversion )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The OP did not mention exactly how many remote branches or computers need to access the documents at once, however, windows Terminal Server licenses
aren't too expensive and the remote desktop experience is silky smooth.
Also the documents would all reside on a central server raid array or NAS device and never need to travel over the internet to remote sites.
This would also free up massive amounts of bandwidth over the VPN, considering TS just needs an internet connection and uses SSL encryption.
(although I don't know what you would even need a VPN for after making this conversion)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28291887</id>
	<title>I know you are going to laugh</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1244728380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The latest installment of Visual Source Safe is pretty good, they improved the performance over the network which used to kill on a domain spread across multiple cities (back during vb6 days), but now is really good repository tool. I also used another , but it lacked the history/detail section and could only keep a max number of files....seeing as you have hundreds of thousands</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The latest installment of Visual Source Safe is pretty good , they improved the performance over the network which used to kill on a domain spread across multiple cities ( back during vb6 days ) , but now is really good repository tool .
I also used another , but it lacked the history/detail section and could only keep a max number of files....seeing as you have hundreds of thousands</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The latest installment of Visual Source Safe is pretty good, they improved the performance over the network which used to kill on a domain spread across multiple cities (back during vb6 days), but now is really good repository tool.
I also used another , but it lacked the history/detail section and could only keep a max number of files....seeing as you have hundreds of thousands</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287567</id>
	<title>Re:Garbage In Garbage Out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244640540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Re "<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... No naming or numbering convention. Get one.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>Well, there; that certainly solves THAT problem.</p><p>Re "<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... There is NO substitute for organization and getting people on the same page. Develop some conventions<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>Google have certainly found a substitute.  Come on, sexconker, the guy has a real problem and the few solutions that are around don't start with a huge - and impossible - purification task.  (While freezing the document base while  the purification is underway?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Re " ... No naming or numbering convention .
Get one .
... " Well , there ; that certainly solves THAT problem.Re " ... There is NO substitute for organization and getting people on the same page .
Develop some conventions ... " Google have certainly found a substitute .
Come on , sexconker , the guy has a real problem and the few solutions that are around do n't start with a huge - and impossible - purification task .
( While freezing the document base while the purification is underway ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re " ... No naming or numbering convention.
Get one.
..."Well, there; that certainly solves THAT problem.Re " ... There is NO substitute for organization and getting people on the same page.
Develop some conventions ..."Google have certainly found a substitute.
Come on, sexconker, the guy has a real problem and the few solutions that are around don't start with a huge - and impossible - purification task.
(While freezing the document base while  the purification is underway?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286313</id>
	<title>WIKI</title>
	<author>unum15</author>
	<datestamp>1244632500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe not the best solution for this particular job, but man am I glad we started using Dokuwiki for all our scattered documents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe not the best solution for this particular job , but man am I glad we started using Dokuwiki for all our scattered documents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe not the best solution for this particular job, but man am I glad we started using Dokuwiki for all our scattered documents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289113</id>
	<title>8 digit index number</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244653140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easy, just rename all the files with a 8 digit index number and provide an excel spreadsheet with the index number and a description of the file!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy , just rename all the files with a 8 digit index number and provide an excel spreadsheet with the index number and a description of the file !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy, just rename all the files with a 8 digit index number and provide an excel spreadsheet with the index number and a description of the file!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28291457</id>
	<title>Re:Google to the rescue?</title>
	<author>Phreakiture</author>
	<datestamp>1244725380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not so sure.  My employer has a Google appliance, and it has never been able to find relevant content for me on the company Intranet.  It isn't that the content isn't there, but there is so much boilerplate language in place that, quite often, there are a glut of documents that contain my search terms.  Your mileage, of course, may vary.</p><p>I think, though, that what may be needed her is a process, not a product.  It will be long and painful, but your best bet, always, is to put a small group of humans <i>authoratatively</i> in charge of the documents.  They can use technology to help them (such as the aforementioned Google appliance, Bayes categorizers, etc), but the ultimate decision needs to be a human one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not so sure .
My employer has a Google appliance , and it has never been able to find relevant content for me on the company Intranet .
It is n't that the content is n't there , but there is so much boilerplate language in place that , quite often , there are a glut of documents that contain my search terms .
Your mileage , of course , may vary.I think , though , that what may be needed her is a process , not a product .
It will be long and painful , but your best bet , always , is to put a small group of humans authoratatively in charge of the documents .
They can use technology to help them ( such as the aforementioned Google appliance , Bayes categorizers , etc ) , but the ultimate decision needs to be a human one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not so sure.
My employer has a Google appliance, and it has never been able to find relevant content for me on the company Intranet.
It isn't that the content isn't there, but there is so much boilerplate language in place that, quite often, there are a glut of documents that contain my search terms.
Your mileage, of course, may vary.I think, though, that what may be needed her is a process, not a product.
It will be long and painful, but your best bet, always, is to put a small group of humans authoratatively in charge of the documents.
They can use technology to help them (such as the aforementioned Google appliance, Bayes categorizers, etc), but the ultimate decision needs to be a human one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286867</id>
	<title>DAM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244635740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Digital Asset Management applications solve this problem; one of which is NetXposure (netx.net).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Digital Asset Management applications solve this problem ; one of which is NetXposure ( netx.net ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Digital Asset Management applications solve this problem; one of which is NetXposure (netx.net).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286611</id>
	<title>Don't forget to add WAN Acceleration to the mix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244634360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No matter what system you use, its still going to be slow.  To overcome the slowness you will need something that makes the SMB/CIFS protocol less chatty.  I would suggest:</p><p>Cisco WAAS   www.cisco.com/go/waas<br>Riverbed   www.riverbed.com</p><p>As two great WAN acceleration products that will help you speed up document retrieval, access, and writes across the satellite link.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter what system you use , its still going to be slow .
To overcome the slowness you will need something that makes the SMB/CIFS protocol less chatty .
I would suggest : Cisco WAAS www.cisco.com/go/waasRiverbed www.riverbed.comAs two great WAN acceleration products that will help you speed up document retrieval , access , and writes across the satellite link .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter what system you use, its still going to be slow.
To overcome the slowness you will need something that makes the SMB/CIFS protocol less chatty.
I would suggest:Cisco WAAS   www.cisco.com/go/waasRiverbed   www.riverbed.comAs two great WAN acceleration products that will help you speed up document retrieval, access, and writes across the satellite link.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286413</id>
	<title>Cognidox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244633160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my last company, which was a leading semiconductor designer with a large document repository and several branch offices, we used Cognidox:</p><p>http://www.cognidox.com/</p><p>This worked well for us; it has good document workflow management, tagging, search capability, user rights management, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my last company , which was a leading semiconductor designer with a large document repository and several branch offices , we used Cognidox : http : //www.cognidox.com/This worked well for us ; it has good document workflow management , tagging , search capability , user rights management , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my last company, which was a leading semiconductor designer with a large document repository and several branch offices, we used Cognidox:http://www.cognidox.com/This worked well for us; it has good document workflow management, tagging, search capability, user rights management, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28290633</id>
	<title>Gina2 - web service</title>
	<author>steve.decaux</author>
	<datestamp>1244712840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dark Green have just this week gone live with Gina2, a web solution for document archives.</p><p>Have a look at <a href="http://www.gina2.net/" title="gina2.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.gina2.net/</a> [gina2.net] - the text is currently in German, but the English translation will be up there in the next couple of weeks.</p><p>Dark Green are offering Gina2 as a hosted service for companies whose core business is not managing IT infrastructure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dark Green have just this week gone live with Gina2 , a web solution for document archives.Have a look at http : //www.gina2.net/ [ gina2.net ] - the text is currently in German , but the English translation will be up there in the next couple of weeks.Dark Green are offering Gina2 as a hosted service for companies whose core business is not managing IT infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dark Green have just this week gone live with Gina2, a web solution for document archives.Have a look at http://www.gina2.net/ [gina2.net] - the text is currently in German, but the English translation will be up there in the next couple of weeks.Dark Green are offering Gina2 as a hosted service for companies whose core business is not managing IT infrastructure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28299839</id>
	<title>Then there's the obvious solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244713260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's a nickle, kid. Get yourself a real computer.<br> <br>

The simple solution is to put them all into a GOOD filesystem that keeps journaling, metadata, and file indexing services, and simply have the person search the Index for the file they want. Then you don't have to deal with creating hierarchies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a nickle , kid .
Get yourself a real computer .
The simple solution is to put them all into a GOOD filesystem that keeps journaling , metadata , and file indexing services , and simply have the person search the Index for the file they want .
Then you do n't have to deal with creating hierarchies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a nickle, kid.
Get yourself a real computer.
The simple solution is to put them all into a GOOD filesystem that keeps journaling, metadata, and file indexing services, and simply have the person search the Index for the file they want.
Then you don't have to deal with creating hierarchies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285727</id>
	<title>Google Search Appliance</title>
	<author>yakatz</author>
	<datestamp>1244630160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google Search Appliance</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Search Appliance</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Search Appliance</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28294825</id>
	<title>Re:Google Appliance</title>
	<author>VTBlue</author>
	<datestamp>1244739000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I should correct myself, Search Server 2008 Express scales upto 400,000 documents not 1,000,000 primarily due to 4GB limitation with SQL Server 2005 Express.  If you have SQL 2008 Express, I'd have to check the scaling.</p><p>One of the big benefits with Microsoft is the ability for granular search tuning.  Enterprise Search is a very different from internet search and having access to the search algorithm is key to get better results.  Below is a partner who deals with GSA and SharePoint/Search Server.</p><p><a href="http://www.nonlinearcreations.com/blog/index.php/2008/06/30/google-search-appliance-and-microsoft-search-side-by-side/" title="nonlinearcreations.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nonlinearcreations.com/blog/index.php/2008/06/30/google-search-appliance-and-microsoft-search-side-by-side/</a> [nonlinearcreations.com]</p><p>If you want my powerpoint presentation on Search Server 2008, please visit:<br><a href="http://www.slideshare.net/ukdpe/microsoft-search-server-2008-technical-overview" title="slideshare.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.slideshare.net/ukdpe/microsoft-search-server-2008-technical-overview</a> [slideshare.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I should correct myself , Search Server 2008 Express scales upto 400,000 documents not 1,000,000 primarily due to 4GB limitation with SQL Server 2005 Express .
If you have SQL 2008 Express , I 'd have to check the scaling.One of the big benefits with Microsoft is the ability for granular search tuning .
Enterprise Search is a very different from internet search and having access to the search algorithm is key to get better results .
Below is a partner who deals with GSA and SharePoint/Search Server.http : //www.nonlinearcreations.com/blog/index.php/2008/06/30/google-search-appliance-and-microsoft-search-side-by-side/ [ nonlinearcreations.com ] If you want my powerpoint presentation on Search Server 2008 , please visit : http : //www.slideshare.net/ukdpe/microsoft-search-server-2008-technical-overview [ slideshare.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I should correct myself, Search Server 2008 Express scales upto 400,000 documents not 1,000,000 primarily due to 4GB limitation with SQL Server 2005 Express.
If you have SQL 2008 Express, I'd have to check the scaling.One of the big benefits with Microsoft is the ability for granular search tuning.
Enterprise Search is a very different from internet search and having access to the search algorithm is key to get better results.
Below is a partner who deals with GSA and SharePoint/Search Server.http://www.nonlinearcreations.com/blog/index.php/2008/06/30/google-search-appliance-and-microsoft-search-side-by-side/ [nonlinearcreations.com]If you want my powerpoint presentation on Search Server 2008, please visit:http://www.slideshare.net/ukdpe/microsoft-search-server-2008-technical-overview [slideshare.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28320077</id>
	<title>Hire a professional librarian.</title>
	<author>Half Balford</author>
	<datestamp>1244910660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not a student. This is not a summer job.
Even if someone at your office has nothing else to do, they will not be able to do a better job than a pro.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a student .
This is not a summer job .
Even if someone at your office has nothing else to do , they will not be able to do a better job than a pro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a student.
This is not a summer job.
Even if someone at your office has nothing else to do, they will not be able to do a better job than a pro.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286471</id>
	<title>Google is the answer</title>
	<author>Black Sabbath</author>
	<datestamp>1244633460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google?<br><a href="http://www.google.com.au/enterprise/mini/index.html" title="google.com.au">http://www.google.com.au/enterprise/mini/index.html</a> [google.com.au]</p><p>Seriously, if you can't be bothered collecting/maintaining the metadata that more structured solutions require, then just let Google index the lot. It'll work just as well (or not) as it does on the Internet. Although its not free it seems reasonably priced. It could be a quick answer to your problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google ? http : //www.google.com.au/enterprise/mini/index.html [ google.com.au ] Seriously , if you ca n't be bothered collecting/maintaining the metadata that more structured solutions require , then just let Google index the lot .
It 'll work just as well ( or not ) as it does on the Internet .
Although its not free it seems reasonably priced .
It could be a quick answer to your problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google?http://www.google.com.au/enterprise/mini/index.html [google.com.au]Seriously, if you can't be bothered collecting/maintaining the metadata that more structured solutions require, then just let Google index the lot.
It'll work just as well (or not) as it does on the Internet.
Although its not free it seems reasonably priced.
It could be a quick answer to your problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28290619</id>
	<title>Users and Spotlight Server</title>
	<author>namgge</author>
	<datestamp>1244712660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Firstly, you can absolutely forget about any system that requires users to name documents in a way that is descriptive, consistent, unique or anything else that a sane person would do.
</p><p>
Secondly, MacOS X Spotlight Server (as of version 10.5.7) doesn't work as one would expect/hope. Users' files stored on the server get indexed by the server but this index can only be read by users logged in to the server console (or via ssh), not clients that access the files my mounting them as shared volumes. If a client wishes to search the files, it must build its own index over the network. The workload on the server/network can cause severe performance issues until the clients have built their indexes, a process that will take hours and may take days to complete if you have a lot of files.
</p><p>
Namgge
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firstly , you can absolutely forget about any system that requires users to name documents in a way that is descriptive , consistent , unique or anything else that a sane person would do .
Secondly , MacOS X Spotlight Server ( as of version 10.5.7 ) does n't work as one would expect/hope .
Users ' files stored on the server get indexed by the server but this index can only be read by users logged in to the server console ( or via ssh ) , not clients that access the files my mounting them as shared volumes .
If a client wishes to search the files , it must build its own index over the network .
The workload on the server/network can cause severe performance issues until the clients have built their indexes , a process that will take hours and may take days to complete if you have a lot of files .
Namgge</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Firstly, you can absolutely forget about any system that requires users to name documents in a way that is descriptive, consistent, unique or anything else that a sane person would do.
Secondly, MacOS X Spotlight Server (as of version 10.5.7) doesn't work as one would expect/hope.
Users' files stored on the server get indexed by the server but this index can only be read by users logged in to the server console (or via ssh), not clients that access the files my mounting them as shared volumes.
If a client wishes to search the files, it must build its own index over the network.
The workload on the server/network can cause severe performance issues until the clients have built their indexes, a process that will take hours and may take days to complete if you have a lot of files.
Namgge
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285797</id>
	<title>Worldox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.worldox.com</p><p>Document management is generally very good. Forces people to fill out required fields. I've seen it implemented in law offices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.worldox.comDocument management is generally very good .
Forces people to fill out required fields .
I 've seen it implemented in law offices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.worldox.comDocument management is generally very good.
Forces people to fill out required fields.
I've seen it implemented in law offices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28304155</id>
	<title>MOSS 2007 | EMC2 Documentum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244738820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 is what you are looking for.<br>(http://sharepoint.microsoft.com/Pages/Default.aspx)</p><p>There is also a more robust application called Documentum by EMC2.<br>(http://www.emc.com/products/category/subcategory/collaboration-and-document-management.htm)</p><p>If you need a consultancy service to help you, please contact us: www.iteris.com.br</p><p>Good luck!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 is what you are looking for .
( http : //sharepoint.microsoft.com/Pages/Default.aspx ) There is also a more robust application called Documentum by EMC2 .
( http : //www.emc.com/products/category/subcategory/collaboration-and-document-management.htm ) If you need a consultancy service to help you , please contact us : www.iteris.com.brGood luck !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 is what you are looking for.
(http://sharepoint.microsoft.com/Pages/Default.aspx)There is also a more robust application called Documentum by EMC2.
(http://www.emc.com/products/category/subcategory/collaboration-and-document-management.htm)If you need a consultancy service to help you, please contact us: www.iteris.com.brGood luck!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285989</id>
	<title>SQL... nuff said...</title>
	<author>Youngbull</author>
	<datestamp>1244631000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the right option for you would have to be ordering the documents in a database and serving them up through a website. I think that would be helpfull for your satelite offices since mapping shares through samba over VPN is sometimes unstable and always nontrivial. Besides the system doesn't seem to be working for you.

You really don't have to be that proficiant with functional webpages to make something like this, especially if you use ruby on rails. A ruby on rails guy would probably use only a couple of hours to make such an application. Then you could have functionality like searching and sort by author, department, type and so on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the right option for you would have to be ordering the documents in a database and serving them up through a website .
I think that would be helpfull for your satelite offices since mapping shares through samba over VPN is sometimes unstable and always nontrivial .
Besides the system does n't seem to be working for you .
You really do n't have to be that proficiant with functional webpages to make something like this , especially if you use ruby on rails .
A ruby on rails guy would probably use only a couple of hours to make such an application .
Then you could have functionality like searching and sort by author , department , type and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the right option for you would have to be ordering the documents in a database and serving them up through a website.
I think that would be helpfull for your satelite offices since mapping shares through samba over VPN is sometimes unstable and always nontrivial.
Besides the system doesn't seem to be working for you.
You really don't have to be that proficiant with functional webpages to make something like this, especially if you use ruby on rails.
A ruby on rails guy would probably use only a couple of hours to make such an application.
Then you could have functionality like searching and sort by author, department, type and so on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285859</id>
	<title>I got 3 letters for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>S V N</b> <br>
<br>
Do it right, or just don't freaking do it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>S V N Do it right , or just do n't freaking do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>S V N 

Do it right, or just don't freaking do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288161</id>
	<title>figure out if there is metadata</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244644860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if there is decent metadata or the content is somehow indexable, you can try a digital asset management system, perhaps open source, to get some kind of organization and accessibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if there is decent metadata or the content is somehow indexable , you can try a digital asset management system , perhaps open source , to get some kind of organization and accessibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if there is decent metadata or the content is somehow indexable, you can try a digital asset management system, perhaps open source, to get some kind of organization and accessibility.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28291481</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>HavocXphere</author>
	<datestamp>1244725560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does it come with MS Clippy office assistant?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it come with MS Clippy office assistant ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it come with MS Clippy office assistant?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285613</id>
	<title>Hummingbird Document management</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244629800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummingbird\_Ltd</p><p>and</p><p>http://connectivity.hummingbird.com/home/connectivity.html?cks=y</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummingbird \ _Ltdandhttp : //connectivity.hummingbird.com/home/connectivity.html ? cks = y</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummingbird\_Ltdandhttp://connectivity.hummingbird.com/home/connectivity.html?cks=y</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288615</id>
	<title>DAM and Extensis Portfolio + Filemaker</title>
	<author>digitalcurator</author>
	<datestamp>1244648340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back in the 90's I helped create a media department for large textbook publisher.  One of the first projects was an asset library and tracking system.

To this message brief.

We first needed a naming convention. Look for a constant throughout your products, ours was ISBN numbers.  That became the main identity of the product/project and their main digital folder.  Every item or product was dropped in a sub folder such as images, design, text, etc.  From here the main folders were always scanned by Portfolio and it was told/programmed that the main descriptions should come from the folder names.  This allowed anyone with knowledge of the product ISBN to find details on the project.  It also greatly minimized keyboarding of metadata onto the files needlessly.

Portfolio then will allow check in and check out (versioning) to stay abreast of any edits or updates.

The whole metadata catalog would also be exported and brought into Filemaker for secondary backup.

Look to a constant for naming convention, keep it simple, look at ways to minimize keyboarding metadata, go over the counter (they are much easier to work with and you can experiment-they are also more than capable of handling 100K documents).

Last.  Good luck and if needed look for help.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the 90 's I helped create a media department for large textbook publisher .
One of the first projects was an asset library and tracking system .
To this message brief .
We first needed a naming convention .
Look for a constant throughout your products , ours was ISBN numbers .
That became the main identity of the product/project and their main digital folder .
Every item or product was dropped in a sub folder such as images , design , text , etc .
From here the main folders were always scanned by Portfolio and it was told/programmed that the main descriptions should come from the folder names .
This allowed anyone with knowledge of the product ISBN to find details on the project .
It also greatly minimized keyboarding of metadata onto the files needlessly .
Portfolio then will allow check in and check out ( versioning ) to stay abreast of any edits or updates .
The whole metadata catalog would also be exported and brought into Filemaker for secondary backup .
Look to a constant for naming convention , keep it simple , look at ways to minimize keyboarding metadata , go over the counter ( they are much easier to work with and you can experiment-they are also more than capable of handling 100K documents ) .
Last. Good luck and if needed look for help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the 90's I helped create a media department for large textbook publisher.
One of the first projects was an asset library and tracking system.
To this message brief.
We first needed a naming convention.
Look for a constant throughout your products, ours was ISBN numbers.
That became the main identity of the product/project and their main digital folder.
Every item or product was dropped in a sub folder such as images, design, text, etc.
From here the main folders were always scanned by Portfolio and it was told/programmed that the main descriptions should come from the folder names.
This allowed anyone with knowledge of the product ISBN to find details on the project.
It also greatly minimized keyboarding of metadata onto the files needlessly.
Portfolio then will allow check in and check out (versioning) to stay abreast of any edits or updates.
The whole metadata catalog would also be exported and brought into Filemaker for secondary backup.
Look to a constant for naming convention, keep it simple, look at ways to minimize keyboarding metadata, go over the counter (they are much easier to work with and you can experiment-they are also more than capable of handling 100K documents).
Last.  Good luck and if needed look for help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289247</id>
	<title>Use a content management system: e.g. IBM/FileNet</title>
	<author>peterofoz</author>
	<datestamp>1244654700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The content engines like IBM/FileNet are set up to manage millions of documents. Many also have the ability to add remote cache servers to improve local performance for repeat document access in satellite offices. Contact Dave at Softech-assoc.com if you need help.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The content engines like IBM/FileNet are set up to manage millions of documents .
Many also have the ability to add remote cache servers to improve local performance for repeat document access in satellite offices .
Contact Dave at Softech-assoc.com if you need help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The content engines like IBM/FileNet are set up to manage millions of documents.
Many also have the ability to add remote cache servers to improve local performance for repeat document access in satellite offices.
Contact Dave at Softech-assoc.com if you need help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289541</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>jawahar</author>
	<datestamp>1244657400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not <a href="http://www.mediawiki.org/" title="mediawiki.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.mediawiki.org/</a> [mediawiki.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not http : //www.mediawiki.org/ [ mediawiki.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not http://www.mediawiki.org/ [mediawiki.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286259</id>
	<title>IBM OmniFind - a simple easy solution</title>
	<author>sfalc</author>
	<datestamp>1244632260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IBM OmniFind should do the trick, It indexes your files and then you can search the index very quickly. It also does caching of documents and other nifty stuff. It is based on Apache Lucene and there is a free (as in beer) version, IBM OmniFind Yahoo Edition. The free version will work with up to 500 000 documents. I used it for searching a number of networked drives with circa 50 000 files on them which it did very well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IBM OmniFind should do the trick , It indexes your files and then you can search the index very quickly .
It also does caching of documents and other nifty stuff .
It is based on Apache Lucene and there is a free ( as in beer ) version , IBM OmniFind Yahoo Edition .
The free version will work with up to 500 000 documents .
I used it for searching a number of networked drives with circa 50 000 files on them which it did very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBM OmniFind should do the trick, It indexes your files and then you can search the index very quickly.
It also does caching of documents and other nifty stuff.
It is based on Apache Lucene and there is a free (as in beer) version, IBM OmniFind Yahoo Edition.
The free version will work with up to 500 000 documents.
I used it for searching a number of networked drives with circa 50 000 files on them which it did very well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286283</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>jockeys</author>
	<datestamp>1244632380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>+1.<br> <br>I'm no MS fanboy, but Sharepoint is great.  I work for a large engineering company and we use it to organize blueprints, as well as pretty much all of our non-code documents.  Even the most clueless HR-types can use it, and it's really not hard to set up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 .
I 'm no MS fanboy , but Sharepoint is great .
I work for a large engineering company and we use it to organize blueprints , as well as pretty much all of our non-code documents .
Even the most clueless HR-types can use it , and it 's really not hard to set up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1.
I'm no MS fanboy, but Sharepoint is great.
I work for a large engineering company and we use it to organize blueprints, as well as pretty much all of our non-code documents.
Even the most clueless HR-types can use it, and it's really not hard to set up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286307</id>
	<title>Regular Expressions</title>
	<author>EvilGrin5000</author>
	<datestamp>1244632500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your solution:<br><br>http://xkcd.com/208/</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your solution : http : //xkcd.com/208/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your solution:http://xkcd.com/208/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288509</id>
	<title>I wrote a few articles about that</title>
	<author>nbauman</author>
	<datestamp>1244647500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wrote a few articles about that for Law Office Computing magazine, so I'm very interested in these comments. It was a long time ago, and the software has changed, but the concepts are still the same.
<p>
<a href="http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/txtsrch.htm" title="nasw.org">http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/txtsrch.htm</a> [nasw.org]
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/lawdb.htm" title="nasw.org">http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/lawdb.htm</a> [nasw.org]
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/discover.htm" title="nasw.org">http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/discover.htm</a> [nasw.org]
</p><p>
They were imaging and indexing up to several million documents. During a civil suit, in discovery, companies on each side of the lawsuit have to disclose every relevant document to each other.
</p><p>
Lawyers probably use the most flexible and all-encompassing systems, since they have to deal with every industry, every profession, everything. They also spend more money on their systems than most people can afford. They told me it costs them about $1 a page to thoroughly index big databases.
</p><p>
Information scientists told me the best model of a document database was PubMed, which indexes virtually every significant published medical article. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed" title="nih.gov">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed</a> [nih.gov]
</p><p>
The big limitation of Google is that you can't search too well by date. Another limitation of text searches is that you can't search for concepts -- just words. Sometimes words (particularly names) match concepts very well, but if they don't, you've got a problem.
</p><p>
Yeah, it would have been nice if you had set up coding and naming conventions at the beginning, so the original authors could have sorted them as you went along. It may be difficult or impossible to go back and re-code them after the fact. It could wind up costing $1 a document. OTOH, you could be lucky -- some industries have been using standardized filing schemes and standardized jargon since the days of slide rules and T-squares.
</p><p>
There should be standard filing schemes and procedures throughout your industry, so your solutions may be industry-specific. There should be consultants that deal with your industry who would be happy to talk to you (for the prospect of maybe getting your business). There should be trade magazines in your industry that have covered the same issue for companies of your size. (Hell, if the price is right I'll write a roundup for them.) Or you might have a trade or professional association with some friendly people who have done it before. Trade and professional associations usually have a computer or information technology section, and if you're a member of the association, you can call up the members of the section.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wrote a few articles about that for Law Office Computing magazine , so I 'm very interested in these comments .
It was a long time ago , and the software has changed , but the concepts are still the same .
http : //www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/txtsrch.htm [ nasw.org ] http : //www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/lawdb.htm [ nasw.org ] http : //www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/discover.htm [ nasw.org ] They were imaging and indexing up to several million documents .
During a civil suit , in discovery , companies on each side of the lawsuit have to disclose every relevant document to each other .
Lawyers probably use the most flexible and all-encompassing systems , since they have to deal with every industry , every profession , everything .
They also spend more money on their systems than most people can afford .
They told me it costs them about $ 1 a page to thoroughly index big databases .
Information scientists told me the best model of a document database was PubMed , which indexes virtually every significant published medical article .
http : //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez ? db = pubmed [ nih.gov ] The big limitation of Google is that you ca n't search too well by date .
Another limitation of text searches is that you ca n't search for concepts -- just words .
Sometimes words ( particularly names ) match concepts very well , but if they do n't , you 've got a problem .
Yeah , it would have been nice if you had set up coding and naming conventions at the beginning , so the original authors could have sorted them as you went along .
It may be difficult or impossible to go back and re-code them after the fact .
It could wind up costing $ 1 a document .
OTOH , you could be lucky -- some industries have been using standardized filing schemes and standardized jargon since the days of slide rules and T-squares .
There should be standard filing schemes and procedures throughout your industry , so your solutions may be industry-specific .
There should be consultants that deal with your industry who would be happy to talk to you ( for the prospect of maybe getting your business ) .
There should be trade magazines in your industry that have covered the same issue for companies of your size .
( Hell , if the price is right I 'll write a roundup for them .
) Or you might have a trade or professional association with some friendly people who have done it before .
Trade and professional associations usually have a computer or information technology section , and if you 're a member of the association , you can call up the members of the section .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wrote a few articles about that for Law Office Computing magazine, so I'm very interested in these comments.
It was a long time ago, and the software has changed, but the concepts are still the same.
http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/txtsrch.htm [nasw.org]

http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/lawdb.htm [nasw.org]

http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/discover.htm [nasw.org]

They were imaging and indexing up to several million documents.
During a civil suit, in discovery, companies on each side of the lawsuit have to disclose every relevant document to each other.
Lawyers probably use the most flexible and all-encompassing systems, since they have to deal with every industry, every profession, everything.
They also spend more money on their systems than most people can afford.
They told me it costs them about $1 a page to thoroughly index big databases.
Information scientists told me the best model of a document database was PubMed, which indexes virtually every significant published medical article.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed [nih.gov]

The big limitation of Google is that you can't search too well by date.
Another limitation of text searches is that you can't search for concepts -- just words.
Sometimes words (particularly names) match concepts very well, but if they don't, you've got a problem.
Yeah, it would have been nice if you had set up coding and naming conventions at the beginning, so the original authors could have sorted them as you went along.
It may be difficult or impossible to go back and re-code them after the fact.
It could wind up costing $1 a document.
OTOH, you could be lucky -- some industries have been using standardized filing schemes and standardized jargon since the days of slide rules and T-squares.
There should be standard filing schemes and procedures throughout your industry, so your solutions may be industry-specific.
There should be consultants that deal with your industry who would be happy to talk to you (for the prospect of maybe getting your business).
There should be trade magazines in your industry that have covered the same issue for companies of your size.
(Hell, if the price is right I'll write a roundup for them.
) Or you might have a trade or professional association with some friendly people who have done it before.
Trade and professional associations usually have a computer or information technology section, and if you're a member of the association, you can call up the members of the section.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287387</id>
	<title>Document Management Systems</title>
	<author>anexkahn</author>
	<datestamp>1244639340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are a ton of Document Management systems out there, our company uses <a href="http://www.opentext.com/" title="opentext.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.opentext.com/</a> [opentext.com] look for DM

You can use Microsoft Share point as a document management system, but it is not really what it was designed for.  DM will integrate with all the Microsoft applications.  It will give you document numbers, version numbers, etc... you can profile your emails as well if you want.

We have had some performance problems for the remote locations, but it is still usable.

I did a search for open source document management systems on Google and there are a ton out there if you don't feel like paying for something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a ton of Document Management systems out there , our company uses http : //www.opentext.com/ [ opentext.com ] look for DM You can use Microsoft Share point as a document management system , but it is not really what it was designed for .
DM will integrate with all the Microsoft applications .
It will give you document numbers , version numbers , etc... you can profile your emails as well if you want .
We have had some performance problems for the remote locations , but it is still usable .
I did a search for open source document management systems on Google and there are a ton out there if you do n't feel like paying for something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a ton of Document Management systems out there, our company uses http://www.opentext.com/ [opentext.com] look for DM

You can use Microsoft Share point as a document management system, but it is not really what it was designed for.
DM will integrate with all the Microsoft applications.
It will give you document numbers, version numbers, etc... you can profile your emails as well if you want.
We have had some performance problems for the remote locations, but it is still usable.
I did a search for open source document management systems on Google and there are a ton out there if you don't feel like paying for something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288477</id>
	<title>This seems interesting:</title>
	<author>diitante</author>
	<datestamp>1244647260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Checkout <a href="http://www.dspace.org/" title="dspace.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.dspace.org/</a> [dspace.org]

Cheers

m</htmltext>
<tokenext>Checkout http : //www.dspace.org/ [ dspace.org ] Cheers m</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Checkout http://www.dspace.org/ [dspace.org]

Cheers

m</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285833</id>
	<title>Get a Document Management System</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any of many document managment systems.  They allow the extraction of meta data, which is in turn used to 'find' the document you are looking for.  Nearly all contain some security settings and a viewer for many types of files.  One thing to note.  This magic doesn't happen by itself, if you get stuck doing this, be prepared for a.  No one really knows how they want to do this, they all want to wonder if one of the many docs has their answer and have the correct doc located and opened for them.  b.  you are about to become a stranger to all those who know you outside of work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any of many document managment systems .
They allow the extraction of meta data , which is in turn used to 'find ' the document you are looking for .
Nearly all contain some security settings and a viewer for many types of files .
One thing to note .
This magic does n't happen by itself , if you get stuck doing this , be prepared for a. No one really knows how they want to do this , they all want to wonder if one of the many docs has their answer and have the correct doc located and opened for them .
b. you are about to become a stranger to all those who know you outside of work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any of many document managment systems.
They allow the extraction of meta data, which is in turn used to 'find' the document you are looking for.
Nearly all contain some security settings and a viewer for many types of files.
One thing to note.
This magic doesn't happen by itself, if you get stuck doing this, be prepared for a.  No one really knows how they want to do this, they all want to wonder if one of the many docs has their answer and have the correct doc located and opened for them.
b.  you are about to become a stranger to all those who know you outside of work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286045</id>
	<title>Laserfiche</title>
	<author>wguy00</author>
	<datestamp>1244631180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Laserfiche (or LF) is just what this is for.  It is DOD, DOJ certified and crap, and is used by all branches of the military and several other areas of the government as their document management system.  With several different software offerings, just about any situation can be taken care of.  It's features include the ability to search based on document name, template information, or OCR'd text (which the software also takes care of).  With add-on features such as Quick Fields, it may be able to automatically sort, add template information, OCR, name and then store the documents.  It really is a nice way to go.  Satellite offices can access and be either full or read-only users.  It has the ability and modules to connect to just about any other type of data/information system (GIS, financial software, etc) and is very scalable.<br>
<br>
I was a tech for 5 years with a LF VAR.  I'm not there anymore.  We were constantly cleaning up messes left by other document management systems.  Take your time with this thing and really plan your naming convention, folder hierarchy and user setup.  It's easier to get it right(or as close to it as possible) then going back and having to fix it later.  A good LF VAR should help you with this.  Definitely check references of competing companies.  Some VAR's are A LOT better than others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Laserfiche ( or LF ) is just what this is for .
It is DOD , DOJ certified and crap , and is used by all branches of the military and several other areas of the government as their document management system .
With several different software offerings , just about any situation can be taken care of .
It 's features include the ability to search based on document name , template information , or OCR 'd text ( which the software also takes care of ) .
With add-on features such as Quick Fields , it may be able to automatically sort , add template information , OCR , name and then store the documents .
It really is a nice way to go .
Satellite offices can access and be either full or read-only users .
It has the ability and modules to connect to just about any other type of data/information system ( GIS , financial software , etc ) and is very scalable .
I was a tech for 5 years with a LF VAR .
I 'm not there anymore .
We were constantly cleaning up messes left by other document management systems .
Take your time with this thing and really plan your naming convention , folder hierarchy and user setup .
It 's easier to get it right ( or as close to it as possible ) then going back and having to fix it later .
A good LF VAR should help you with this .
Definitely check references of competing companies .
Some VAR 's are A LOT better than others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laserfiche (or LF) is just what this is for.
It is DOD, DOJ certified and crap, and is used by all branches of the military and several other areas of the government as their document management system.
With several different software offerings, just about any situation can be taken care of.
It's features include the ability to search based on document name, template information, or OCR'd text (which the software also takes care of).
With add-on features such as Quick Fields, it may be able to automatically sort, add template information, OCR, name and then store the documents.
It really is a nice way to go.
Satellite offices can access and be either full or read-only users.
It has the ability and modules to connect to just about any other type of data/information system (GIS, financial software, etc) and is very scalable.
I was a tech for 5 years with a LF VAR.
I'm not there anymore.
We were constantly cleaning up messes left by other document management systems.
Take your time with this thing and really plan your naming convention, folder hierarchy and user setup.
It's easier to get it right(or as close to it as possible) then going back and having to fix it later.
A good LF VAR should help you with this.
Definitely check references of competing companies.
Some VAR's are A LOT better than others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286801</id>
	<title>A versioning system with check-in verification</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244635260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CVS, SVN, Git &amp; friends with some sort of check-in verification scripts could provide what you look for. All of these<br>can interact with your LDAP directory as well.</p><p>A Tortoise client can provide Win Explorer integration and simplify user operations but a nice How-To with pictures<br>could probably help you sell it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CVS , SVN , Git &amp; friends with some sort of check-in verification scripts could provide what you look for .
All of thesecan interact with your LDAP directory as well.A Tortoise client can provide Win Explorer integration and simplify user operations but a nice How-To with picturescould probably help you sell it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CVS, SVN, Git &amp; friends with some sort of check-in verification scripts could provide what you look for.
All of thesecan interact with your LDAP directory as well.A Tortoise client can provide Win Explorer integration and simplify user operations but a nice How-To with picturescould probably help you sell it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288019</id>
	<title>Mediawiki with SemanticMediawiki / hire a li</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244643720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could use mediawiki as a front end to your documents, possibly with the semantic mediawiki plugin.</p><p>I'm serious! If all your documents have a URL, you can link to them from the wiki, and then build a comprehensive system of summaries, categorisation, and semantic data about the documents.</p><p>But that's just one tool. There are many such tools. There's no magic bullet; you just need someone to organize all your data.. It sounds like you need something like a librarian, possibly you could hire one part time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could use mediawiki as a front end to your documents , possibly with the semantic mediawiki plugin.I 'm serious !
If all your documents have a URL , you can link to them from the wiki , and then build a comprehensive system of summaries , categorisation , and semantic data about the documents.But that 's just one tool .
There are many such tools .
There 's no magic bullet ; you just need someone to organize all your data.. It sounds like you need something like a librarian , possibly you could hire one part time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could use mediawiki as a front end to your documents, possibly with the semantic mediawiki plugin.I'm serious!
If all your documents have a URL, you can link to them from the wiki, and then build a comprehensive system of summaries, categorisation, and semantic data about the documents.But that's just one tool.
There are many such tools.
There's no magic bullet; you just need someone to organize all your data.. It sounds like you need something like a librarian, possibly you could hire one part time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287411</id>
	<title>Document Management System</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244639520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at a document management system.   Interwoven makes a great one.  Some things to consider:<br>*  Security<br>*  Version Control<br>*  Document History (Access, Changes, etc.)<br>*  Search Capability (Profile Search, Full Text Search, Date Search)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at a document management system .
Interwoven makes a great one .
Some things to consider : * Security * Version Control * Document History ( Access , Changes , etc .
) * Search Capability ( Profile Search , Full Text Search , Date Search )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at a document management system.
Interwoven makes a great one.
Some things to consider:*  Security*  Version Control*  Document History (Access, Changes, etc.
)*  Search Capability (Profile Search, Full Text Search, Date Search)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28303989</id>
	<title>google, really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244737020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i'm surprised so many folks here would jump to a goog appliance conclusion here. it's one of many search-only answers.</p><p>part of the problem is text search. the other part is how why and when the docs ended up in these directories in the first place. a file directory alone does not a solution make. you need something that can hold and search your current directory based docs, but get you past this obviously inappropriate way of doing things.</p><p>merge blog (journal what's going on and why one my care about a document) and wiki (stable organization of docs over time)  and better-than-google search - and you have a solution. www.tractionsoftware.com has an approach for this. there may be others that satisfy as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'm surprised so many folks here would jump to a goog appliance conclusion here .
it 's one of many search-only answers.part of the problem is text search .
the other part is how why and when the docs ended up in these directories in the first place .
a file directory alone does not a solution make .
you need something that can hold and search your current directory based docs , but get you past this obviously inappropriate way of doing things.merge blog ( journal what 's going on and why one my care about a document ) and wiki ( stable organization of docs over time ) and better-than-google search - and you have a solution .
www.tractionsoftware.com has an approach for this .
there may be others that satisfy as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'm surprised so many folks here would jump to a goog appliance conclusion here.
it's one of many search-only answers.part of the problem is text search.
the other part is how why and when the docs ended up in these directories in the first place.
a file directory alone does not a solution make.
you need something that can hold and search your current directory based docs, but get you past this obviously inappropriate way of doing things.merge blog (journal what's going on and why one my care about a document) and wiki (stable organization of docs over time)  and better-than-google search - and you have a solution.
www.tractionsoftware.com has an approach for this.
there may be others that satisfy as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286579</id>
	<title>KnowledgeTree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244634120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could do worse than to look into KnowledgeTree<br>http://www.knowledgetree.com/<br>it's released under GPL2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could do worse than to look into KnowledgeTreehttp : //www.knowledgetree.com/it 's released under GPL2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could do worse than to look into KnowledgeTreehttp://www.knowledgetree.com/it's released under GPL2.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285997</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244631060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am going to have to second the Sharepoint suggestion, we have been using it for 2 years now to do exactly what you need.  But I would recommend investing in SANS, no more vpn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am going to have to second the Sharepoint suggestion , we have been using it for 2 years now to do exactly what you need .
But I would recommend investing in SANS , no more vpn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am going to have to second the Sharepoint suggestion, we have been using it for 2 years now to do exactly what you need.
But I would recommend investing in SANS, no more vpn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286499</id>
	<title>SharePoint wiki</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244633640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know I'm gonna get hit for blurting out the Microsoft Solution but...give SharePoint a shot...</p></div><p>Just avoid the wiki functionality like the plague. It completely sucks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I 'm gon na get hit for blurting out the Microsoft Solution but...give SharePoint a shot...Just avoid the wiki functionality like the plague .
It completely sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I'm gonna get hit for blurting out the Microsoft Solution but...give SharePoint a shot...Just avoid the wiki functionality like the plague.
It completely sucks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286449</id>
	<title>Re:Google to the rescue?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244633340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depending on the size of the company and number of files, a GoogleMini might be a cheaper, equally effective option.<br>http://www.googlestore.com/appliance/product.asp?catid=3</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depending on the size of the company and number of files , a GoogleMini might be a cheaper , equally effective option.http : //www.googlestore.com/appliance/product.asp ? catid = 3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depending on the size of the company and number of files, a GoogleMini might be a cheaper, equally effective option.http://www.googlestore.com/appliance/product.asp?catid=3</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289221</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244654460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've used Sharepoint, and it was relatively simple, but I still felt like it was a pain in the ass.  I never really liked it.<br>For what the OP suggests it for, it's too simple (not enough capabilities) really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used Sharepoint , and it was relatively simple , but I still felt like it was a pain in the ass .
I never really liked it.For what the OP suggests it for , it 's too simple ( not enough capabilities ) really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used Sharepoint, and it was relatively simple, but I still felt like it was a pain in the ass.
I never really liked it.For what the OP suggests it for, it's too simple (not enough capabilities) really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285825</id>
	<title>Knowledge Tree?</title>
	<author>gilesjuk</author>
	<datestamp>1244630520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used an old version a while ago and it was pretty good then. Does versioning and other things.</p><p><a href="http://www.knowledgetree.com/" title="knowledgetree.com">http://www.knowledgetree.com/</a> [knowledgetree.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used an old version a while ago and it was pretty good then .
Does versioning and other things.http : //www.knowledgetree.com/ [ knowledgetree.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used an old version a while ago and it was pretty good then.
Does versioning and other things.http://www.knowledgetree.com/ [knowledgetree.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287259</id>
	<title>Talk to a Library Systems person</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244638380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ask about digital repository</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ask about digital repository</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ask about digital repository</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286125</id>
	<title>Sharepoint</title>
	<author>jayhawk88</author>
	<datestamp>1244631540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...seems like a natural solution for your connectivity issues, or perhaps whatever the open source variety of Sharepoint is. You really do need to tackle the naming convention question though. You can have all the file indexing you want, but sometimes a nice, logical, clean file name will get you what you're after much faster than any kind of searching.</p><p>It's going to be horrible, painful, thankless work that will put you on the shit list of just about every department manager and administrative assistant ("You want me to rename how many files?"), but it has to be done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...seems like a natural solution for your connectivity issues , or perhaps whatever the open source variety of Sharepoint is .
You really do need to tackle the naming convention question though .
You can have all the file indexing you want , but sometimes a nice , logical , clean file name will get you what you 're after much faster than any kind of searching.It 's going to be horrible , painful , thankless work that will put you on the shit list of just about every department manager and administrative assistant ( " You want me to rename how many files ?
" ) , but it has to be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...seems like a natural solution for your connectivity issues, or perhaps whatever the open source variety of Sharepoint is.
You really do need to tackle the naming convention question though.
You can have all the file indexing you want, but sometimes a nice, logical, clean file name will get you what you're after much faster than any kind of searching.It's going to be horrible, painful, thankless work that will put you on the shit list of just about every department manager and administrative assistant ("You want me to rename how many files?
"), but it has to be done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28292119</id>
	<title>Re:Technical issues aside</title>
	<author>James McP</author>
	<datestamp>1244729280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Engineers <b> <i>can</i> </b> they just generally don't.  I spent three years working at a library so I have a fondness for good organization systems.</p><p>I was the file system nazi at my last company, a civil engineering firm.  I was hired for engineering and IT support right as they started implementing a standard.  The nazi-ism started by marking every directory in the existing file store read-only on every project that was complete, according to the accountants.</p><p>Then "create directory" permissions were limited to senior project managers and their one  administrative assistant.  I set up a script to check for new directories every day and I'd email anyone who didn't follow protocol.  I pre-seeded the directory structure by getting the list of open project numbers from finance so in theory, everything billable already had a home waiting for it.  For new projects I simplified things by creating little widget that asked for a project number and the contract name and it created the directory tree.</p><p>We created a separate volume that contained data that was not project specific but may be needed across multiple projects.  I.e. the various CAD standards (national, Corps of Engineers, DoD, DoT, etc) along with company/client logos, all the stock patterns/icons for the various CAD programs, etc.  All the CAD programs were set to point to that shared directory by default to encourage the worker-bees to put shared data there so they wouldn't have to set project-specific directory over-rides.</p><p>That directory allowed everyone to add data but only the CAD/marketing/PR/QA managers could delete/overwrite files.  A report was generated monthly and send to the managers that listed files with similar names and extensions to make sure we didn't wind up with 25 versions of one logo or hatch pattern.</p><p>This was staff-intensive but that's because capital expenditures were the devil since they couldn't be charged easily to a project.  File management, however, is something that was billable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Engineers can they just generally do n't .
I spent three years working at a library so I have a fondness for good organization systems.I was the file system nazi at my last company , a civil engineering firm .
I was hired for engineering and IT support right as they started implementing a standard .
The nazi-ism started by marking every directory in the existing file store read-only on every project that was complete , according to the accountants.Then " create directory " permissions were limited to senior project managers and their one administrative assistant .
I set up a script to check for new directories every day and I 'd email anyone who did n't follow protocol .
I pre-seeded the directory structure by getting the list of open project numbers from finance so in theory , everything billable already had a home waiting for it .
For new projects I simplified things by creating little widget that asked for a project number and the contract name and it created the directory tree.We created a separate volume that contained data that was not project specific but may be needed across multiple projects .
I.e. the various CAD standards ( national , Corps of Engineers , DoD , DoT , etc ) along with company/client logos , all the stock patterns/icons for the various CAD programs , etc .
All the CAD programs were set to point to that shared directory by default to encourage the worker-bees to put shared data there so they would n't have to set project-specific directory over-rides.That directory allowed everyone to add data but only the CAD/marketing/PR/QA managers could delete/overwrite files .
A report was generated monthly and send to the managers that listed files with similar names and extensions to make sure we did n't wind up with 25 versions of one logo or hatch pattern.This was staff-intensive but that 's because capital expenditures were the devil since they could n't be charged easily to a project .
File management , however , is something that was billable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Engineers  can  they just generally don't.
I spent three years working at a library so I have a fondness for good organization systems.I was the file system nazi at my last company, a civil engineering firm.
I was hired for engineering and IT support right as they started implementing a standard.
The nazi-ism started by marking every directory in the existing file store read-only on every project that was complete, according to the accountants.Then "create directory" permissions were limited to senior project managers and their one  administrative assistant.
I set up a script to check for new directories every day and I'd email anyone who didn't follow protocol.
I pre-seeded the directory structure by getting the list of open project numbers from finance so in theory, everything billable already had a home waiting for it.
For new projects I simplified things by creating little widget that asked for a project number and the contract name and it created the directory tree.We created a separate volume that contained data that was not project specific but may be needed across multiple projects.
I.e. the various CAD standards (national, Corps of Engineers, DoD, DoT, etc) along with company/client logos, all the stock patterns/icons for the various CAD programs, etc.
All the CAD programs were set to point to that shared directory by default to encourage the worker-bees to put shared data there so they wouldn't have to set project-specific directory over-rides.That directory allowed everyone to add data but only the CAD/marketing/PR/QA managers could delete/overwrite files.
A report was generated monthly and send to the managers that listed files with similar names and extensions to make sure we didn't wind up with 25 versions of one logo or hatch pattern.This was staff-intensive but that's because capital expenditures were the devil since they couldn't be charged easily to a project.
File management, however, is something that was billable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286639</id>
	<title>Thunderstone</title>
	<author>Darth Cider</author>
	<datestamp>1244634480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Check out <a href="http://www.thunderstone.com/texis/site/pages" title="thunderstone.com">Thunderstone.</a> [thunderstone.com] It's what they do, and they do it very well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out Thunderstone .
[ thunderstone.com ] It 's what they do , and they do it very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out Thunderstone.
[thunderstone.com] It's what they do, and they do it very well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286595</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>Sylver Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1244634240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Add another me too for Sharepoint. <br>
From the initial question, I'd guess that just WSS3 will get the job done and it's free.    One important piece of this though is: plan your deployment.  Figure out what type of site structure you plan to use before you implement anything.  Sharepoint can be a wonderful tool, but if you just jump into it and let it grow organically you will end up hating it and yourself.  And trying to monkey around with the site structure after the fact can be trouble.  Oh and, get familiar with ASP.NET master pages and what they do and how they work.  You will be using them in WSS, and if you go into it without care you can trash your entire site fast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Add another me too for Sharepoint .
From the initial question , I 'd guess that just WSS3 will get the job done and it 's free .
One important piece of this though is : plan your deployment .
Figure out what type of site structure you plan to use before you implement anything .
Sharepoint can be a wonderful tool , but if you just jump into it and let it grow organically you will end up hating it and yourself .
And trying to monkey around with the site structure after the fact can be trouble .
Oh and , get familiar with ASP.NET master pages and what they do and how they work .
You will be using them in WSS , and if you go into it without care you can trash your entire site fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Add another me too for Sharepoint.
From the initial question, I'd guess that just WSS3 will get the job done and it's free.
One important piece of this though is: plan your deployment.
Figure out what type of site structure you plan to use before you implement anything.
Sharepoint can be a wonderful tool, but if you just jump into it and let it grow organically you will end up hating it and yourself.
And trying to monkey around with the site structure after the fact can be trouble.
Oh and, get familiar with ASP.NET master pages and what they do and how they work.
You will be using them in WSS, and if you go into it without care you can trash your entire site fast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28294935</id>
	<title>Organization and Procedure</title>
	<author>Edrick</author>
	<datestamp>1244739420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems that the first responses to a request like this is to suggest new technologies and programs to solve the problem.  It sounds, though, like 95\% of the problem is that there are no procedures and organization in place already so that files have a purpose or place to go.

A good file storage policy with the appropriate instructions sent to the users could just as easily make this work going forward.  I've seen collections of millions of files that were perfectly fine as they were organized by user, purpose, source, destination, etc...and then subdivided as needed...and users knew what the organization was and how to maintain it (to their own benefit as it means they can find their own stuff).

You can also institute a more structured system where organization is already there for them to use, but it's your call.

ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS figure out how you want things to be organized first!  What are the functions of these files, why are they saved, who created them,, who accesses them?  This will make the job of sorting the mess out easier.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that the first responses to a request like this is to suggest new technologies and programs to solve the problem .
It sounds , though , like 95 \ % of the problem is that there are no procedures and organization in place already so that files have a purpose or place to go .
A good file storage policy with the appropriate instructions sent to the users could just as easily make this work going forward .
I 've seen collections of millions of files that were perfectly fine as they were organized by user , purpose , source , destination , etc...and then subdivided as needed...and users knew what the organization was and how to maintain it ( to their own benefit as it means they can find their own stuff ) .
You can also institute a more structured system where organization is already there for them to use , but it 's your call .
ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS figure out how you want things to be organized first !
What are the functions of these files , why are they saved , who created them, , who accesses them ?
This will make the job of sorting the mess out easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that the first responses to a request like this is to suggest new technologies and programs to solve the problem.
It sounds, though, like 95\% of the problem is that there are no procedures and organization in place already so that files have a purpose or place to go.
A good file storage policy with the appropriate instructions sent to the users could just as easily make this work going forward.
I've seen collections of millions of files that were perfectly fine as they were organized by user, purpose, source, destination, etc...and then subdivided as needed...and users knew what the organization was and how to maintain it (to their own benefit as it means they can find their own stuff).
You can also institute a more structured system where organization is already there for them to use, but it's your call.
ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS figure out how you want things to be organized first!
What are the functions of these files, why are they saved, who created them,, who accesses them?
This will make the job of sorting the mess out easier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285587</id>
	<title>Google wave</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244629680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's in beta though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's in beta though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's in beta though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28291337</id>
	<title>Check with the NTTC</title>
	<author>JSC</author>
	<datestamp>1244724120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Several years ago I worked for a NASA project called the <a href="http://www.nttc.edu/" title="nttc.edu" rel="nofollow">National Technology Transfer Center</a> [nttc.edu].  A big part of the job there is organizing and searching through tens of thousands of pages of research documents.  They used a document oriented database at the time although they may have migrated to something else since then.  You might want to contact them for advice.</p><p>A friend of mine was the person primarily responsible for scanning in the documents.  IIRC, the process involved OCR of the scans for key word search and indexing and then storing a compressible graphic image of the page - this got them around the problem of text databases not storing technical drawings, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Several years ago I worked for a NASA project called the National Technology Transfer Center [ nttc.edu ] .
A big part of the job there is organizing and searching through tens of thousands of pages of research documents .
They used a document oriented database at the time although they may have migrated to something else since then .
You might want to contact them for advice.A friend of mine was the person primarily responsible for scanning in the documents .
IIRC , the process involved OCR of the scans for key word search and indexing and then storing a compressible graphic image of the page - this got them around the problem of text databases not storing technical drawings , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Several years ago I worked for a NASA project called the National Technology Transfer Center [nttc.edu].
A big part of the job there is organizing and searching through tens of thousands of pages of research documents.
They used a document oriented database at the time although they may have migrated to something else since then.
You might want to contact them for advice.A friend of mine was the person primarily responsible for scanning in the documents.
IIRC, the process involved OCR of the scans for key word search and indexing and then storing a compressible graphic image of the page - this got them around the problem of text databases not storing technical drawings, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28291997</id>
	<title>Smeadsoft</title>
	<author>aapold</author>
	<datestamp>1244728800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.smeadsoft.com/Default.aspx?NodeId=82" title="smeadsoft.com">Smeadsoft</a> [smeadsoft.com] might work for you.
-- note: I don't work for them or any affiliate of theirs, and have no vested interest in them being used --
<br> <br>
I'm in the process of setting up one of their systems for document management, it seems to be quite capable of that.  Its not open source and it would involve some cash to set it up, but I think it worth looking into if those two things don't eliminate it from consideration.  (they also handle management of physical files, which is where they came from)...  Thus far set up involves setting up a lot of framework and tags for the actual documents, and scanning a lot of physical files to be stored.  There is this system of using large scanners with something called VRS, and putting barcode identifier sheets with stacks of documents.
<br> <br>
So for example you could have a large stack of papers, of which half belong to one category (or subcat or subsubetc), the others to a second.  You put barcode sheet (a blank paper save for one barcode) for the first category, then all those papers, then a barcode sheet for the next category, and so on.  You load them into the scanner (obviously a high capacity one) and it reads them all and puts the scanned documents into the proper location in the database automatically.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Smeadsoft [ smeadsoft.com ] might work for you .
-- note : I do n't work for them or any affiliate of theirs , and have no vested interest in them being used -- I 'm in the process of setting up one of their systems for document management , it seems to be quite capable of that .
Its not open source and it would involve some cash to set it up , but I think it worth looking into if those two things do n't eliminate it from consideration .
( they also handle management of physical files , which is where they came from ) ... Thus far set up involves setting up a lot of framework and tags for the actual documents , and scanning a lot of physical files to be stored .
There is this system of using large scanners with something called VRS , and putting barcode identifier sheets with stacks of documents .
So for example you could have a large stack of papers , of which half belong to one category ( or subcat or subsubetc ) , the others to a second .
You put barcode sheet ( a blank paper save for one barcode ) for the first category , then all those papers , then a barcode sheet for the next category , and so on .
You load them into the scanner ( obviously a high capacity one ) and it reads them all and puts the scanned documents into the proper location in the database automatically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Smeadsoft [smeadsoft.com] might work for you.
-- note: I don't work for them or any affiliate of theirs, and have no vested interest in them being used --
 
I'm in the process of setting up one of their systems for document management, it seems to be quite capable of that.
Its not open source and it would involve some cash to set it up, but I think it worth looking into if those two things don't eliminate it from consideration.
(they also handle management of physical files, which is where they came from)...  Thus far set up involves setting up a lot of framework and tags for the actual documents, and scanning a lot of physical files to be stored.
There is this system of using large scanners with something called VRS, and putting barcode identifier sheets with stacks of documents.
So for example you could have a large stack of papers, of which half belong to one category (or subcat or subsubetc), the others to a second.
You put barcode sheet (a blank paper save for one barcode) for the first category, then all those papers, then a barcode sheet for the next category, and so on.
You load them into the scanner (obviously a high capacity one) and it reads them all and puts the scanned documents into the proper location in the database automatically.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286357</id>
	<title>Old tech</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1244632860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called an index or a bibliography.  There exists a profession known as 'librarian' specifically trained in the creation of such and in the management of large numbers of documents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called an index or a bibliography .
There exists a profession known as 'librarian ' specifically trained in the creation of such and in the management of large numbers of documents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called an index or a bibliography.
There exists a profession known as 'librarian' specifically trained in the creation of such and in the management of large numbers of documents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286695</id>
	<title>Alfresco (Open-Source)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244634660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look into Alfresco: http://www.alfresco.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look into Alfresco : http : //www.alfresco.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look into Alfresco: http://www.alfresco.com/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28295919</id>
	<title>solr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244742780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've found solr (http://lucene.apache.org/solr/) super easy to install and very effective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've found solr ( http : //lucene.apache.org/solr/ ) super easy to install and very effective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've found solr (http://lucene.apache.org/solr/) super easy to install and very effective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287171</id>
	<title>Real Men Use</title>
	<author>maz2331</author>
	<datestamp>1244637660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Real men use an old TI-99/4A machine with a casette recorder, and files sent via RS-232 connections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Real men use an old TI-99/4A machine with a casette recorder , and files sent via RS-232 connections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real men use an old TI-99/4A machine with a casette recorder, and files sent via RS-232 connections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28314599</id>
	<title>RE: How To Manage 100s of 1000s of Documents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244803440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OnBase from Hyland Software</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OnBase from Hyland Software</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OnBase from Hyland Software</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285687</id>
	<title>Tiered storage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have massive project on your hands! You need a tiered storage solution and document management system that is back-end (Stored) on SAN storage. How big of a budget do you have to solve this problem? Double it.</p><p>Tiered storage requires the business to prioritize data by levels  (1...n) 1 is highest, 2 is less than one, 3 is less than 1 and 2.<br>Generally 3 levels are employed sometime more.</p><p>Does the mgmt understand the complexity of the issue? Do they support the project? You have a lot of data gathering to do before you can even determine what you need.</p><p>Godspeed!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have massive project on your hands !
You need a tiered storage solution and document management system that is back-end ( Stored ) on SAN storage .
How big of a budget do you have to solve this problem ?
Double it.Tiered storage requires the business to prioritize data by levels ( 1...n ) 1 is highest , 2 is less than one , 3 is less than 1 and 2.Generally 3 levels are employed sometime more.Does the mgmt understand the complexity of the issue ?
Do they support the project ?
You have a lot of data gathering to do before you can even determine what you need.Godspeed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have massive project on your hands!
You need a tiered storage solution and document management system that is back-end (Stored) on SAN storage.
How big of a budget do you have to solve this problem?
Double it.Tiered storage requires the business to prioritize data by levels  (1...n) 1 is highest, 2 is less than one, 3 is less than 1 and 2.Generally 3 levels are employed sometime more.Does the mgmt understand the complexity of the issue?
Do they support the project?
You have a lot of data gathering to do before you can even determine what you need.Godspeed!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286513</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>pete-classic</author>
	<datestamp>1244633760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does Sharepoint address his problem?  It uses the <em>exact same</em> folder/file paradigm that is failing in his existing solution.</p><p>-Peter</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does Sharepoint address his problem ?
It uses the exact same folder/file paradigm that is failing in his existing solution.-Peter</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does Sharepoint address his problem?
It uses the exact same folder/file paradigm that is failing in his existing solution.-Peter</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286315</id>
	<title>There is a right way.</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1244632560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document\_management\_system" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document\_management\_system</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>For that level of documentation you need to have a staff and get it properly indexed. You need a high level librarian. This would be someone with a masters degree at minimum in library science and at least a bachelors in information technology. They will not come cheap and they are a long term investment. The software is available, it is not trivial. Hiring a large number of people to recategorize and tag all the documents for the length of time that takes is also an expense but worth it. Once it's all in place maintaining it gets much easier.</p><p>I've seen a system developed for Raytheon. They took all the old compartmentalized data Hughes had and put every scrap of paper through a scanner. It was exceptionally well done. This would display electronic files and would have the location of hard copy. Classified documents were in some cases indexed but were hard copy only afaik. There were some documents that were hard copy only, those were usually ones with an NDA or other restriction on making electronic copies. It had every thing mentioned wrt versioning and such. Documents spanned decades with hundreds of revisions and you could pull up and view any revision. Depending on how recent and what type of document you could view a change log. Older scanned ones did not have that unless they'd been important enough to reenter as modern documents which meant OCR or manually transcribed. Some schematics were reentered into the system in a modern format. The effort was worth it. Having that data is the only way some devices or parts could be made or repaired.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document\_management\_system" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document\_management\_system</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document \ _management \ _system [ wikipedia.org ] For that level of documentation you need to have a staff and get it properly indexed .
You need a high level librarian .
This would be someone with a masters degree at minimum in library science and at least a bachelors in information technology .
They will not come cheap and they are a long term investment .
The software is available , it is not trivial .
Hiring a large number of people to recategorize and tag all the documents for the length of time that takes is also an expense but worth it .
Once it 's all in place maintaining it gets much easier.I 've seen a system developed for Raytheon .
They took all the old compartmentalized data Hughes had and put every scrap of paper through a scanner .
It was exceptionally well done .
This would display electronic files and would have the location of hard copy .
Classified documents were in some cases indexed but were hard copy only afaik .
There were some documents that were hard copy only , those were usually ones with an NDA or other restriction on making electronic copies .
It had every thing mentioned wrt versioning and such .
Documents spanned decades with hundreds of revisions and you could pull up and view any revision .
Depending on how recent and what type of document you could view a change log .
Older scanned ones did not have that unless they 'd been important enough to reenter as modern documents which meant OCR or manually transcribed .
Some schematics were reentered into the system in a modern format .
The effort was worth it .
Having that data is the only way some devices or parts could be made or repaired.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document \ _management \ _system [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document\_management\_system [wikipedia.org]For that level of documentation you need to have a staff and get it properly indexed.
You need a high level librarian.
This would be someone with a masters degree at minimum in library science and at least a bachelors in information technology.
They will not come cheap and they are a long term investment.
The software is available, it is not trivial.
Hiring a large number of people to recategorize and tag all the documents for the length of time that takes is also an expense but worth it.
Once it's all in place maintaining it gets much easier.I've seen a system developed for Raytheon.
They took all the old compartmentalized data Hughes had and put every scrap of paper through a scanner.
It was exceptionally well done.
This would display electronic files and would have the location of hard copy.
Classified documents were in some cases indexed but were hard copy only afaik.
There were some documents that were hard copy only, those were usually ones with an NDA or other restriction on making electronic copies.
It had every thing mentioned wrt versioning and such.
Documents spanned decades with hundreds of revisions and you could pull up and view any revision.
Depending on how recent and what type of document you could view a change log.
Older scanned ones did not have that unless they'd been important enough to reenter as modern documents which meant OCR or manually transcribed.
Some schematics were reentered into the system in a modern format.
The effort was worth it.
Having that data is the only way some devices or parts could be made or repaired.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document\_management\_system [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286481</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1244633460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Totally agree. SharePoint is one of the few recent products that Microsoft actually got right. Of course, they will probably find a way to screw it up down the road, but currently it rocks as an enterprise level document repository.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally agree .
SharePoint is one of the few recent products that Microsoft actually got right .
Of course , they will probably find a way to screw it up down the road , but currently it rocks as an enterprise level document repository .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally agree.
SharePoint is one of the few recent products that Microsoft actually got right.
Of course, they will probably find a way to screw it up down the road, but currently it rocks as an enterprise level document repository.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289115</id>
	<title>Airbus...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244653200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Airbus?  Is that you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Airbus ?
Is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Airbus?
Is that you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289161</id>
	<title>Use Permissions: User &amp; Group: Company Structu</title>
	<author>blavallee</author>
	<datestamp>1244653680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Outside of shoring up your connectivity to the remote site, you should use the structure of your company to your advantage.</p><p>It sounds like the wild west.  You gave everyone full RW access to the fileserver.</p><p>Build a file structure the mirrors the organization of the company and apply permissions appropriately.<br>Map drives in the same fashion.  An added advantage to this, you can split the files across separate Samba servers later with a minor map change.</p><p>The finance department has no reason digging around in your design documents.<br>The engineers don't have any reason to poke around in your sales collateral.<br>Does everyone in the company need to be tempted to open "DOD\_GPS\_NOYB\_47-090611.xls"</p><p>Getting every employee to adhere to a single naming convention is like herding cats.  Delegate responsibility to the directors and managers to keep their areas on the server organized to their own needs.  Then you just need to deal with the occasional outlaw.</p><p>You may also want to deploy Samba servers to the local offices and back them up to a central server regularly.  Use this for personal shares and anything that is primarily used ONLY in the local office.</p><p>In most cases, I doubt that "the single person" working on Project X at Remote Site A needs to work off of a centralized copy of their document.  Do you really need to share this document across your entire organization?  Let the employee keep their file on the local offices share.  Let a employee or a manager share it with the entire department.  Let the director share it with sales.</p><p>In the end, you may find one small part of the organization that REALLY needs a naming or numbering convention.  You can address that when they approach you.  For now, you need to stop everyone from treating the company share like their own desktop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Outside of shoring up your connectivity to the remote site , you should use the structure of your company to your advantage.It sounds like the wild west .
You gave everyone full RW access to the fileserver.Build a file structure the mirrors the organization of the company and apply permissions appropriately.Map drives in the same fashion .
An added advantage to this , you can split the files across separate Samba servers later with a minor map change.The finance department has no reason digging around in your design documents.The engineers do n't have any reason to poke around in your sales collateral.Does everyone in the company need to be tempted to open " DOD \ _GPS \ _NOYB \ _47-090611.xls " Getting every employee to adhere to a single naming convention is like herding cats .
Delegate responsibility to the directors and managers to keep their areas on the server organized to their own needs .
Then you just need to deal with the occasional outlaw.You may also want to deploy Samba servers to the local offices and back them up to a central server regularly .
Use this for personal shares and anything that is primarily used ONLY in the local office.In most cases , I doubt that " the single person " working on Project X at Remote Site A needs to work off of a centralized copy of their document .
Do you really need to share this document across your entire organization ?
Let the employee keep their file on the local offices share .
Let a employee or a manager share it with the entire department .
Let the director share it with sales.In the end , you may find one small part of the organization that REALLY needs a naming or numbering convention .
You can address that when they approach you .
For now , you need to stop everyone from treating the company share like their own desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outside of shoring up your connectivity to the remote site, you should use the structure of your company to your advantage.It sounds like the wild west.
You gave everyone full RW access to the fileserver.Build a file structure the mirrors the organization of the company and apply permissions appropriately.Map drives in the same fashion.
An added advantage to this, you can split the files across separate Samba servers later with a minor map change.The finance department has no reason digging around in your design documents.The engineers don't have any reason to poke around in your sales collateral.Does everyone in the company need to be tempted to open "DOD\_GPS\_NOYB\_47-090611.xls"Getting every employee to adhere to a single naming convention is like herding cats.
Delegate responsibility to the directors and managers to keep their areas on the server organized to their own needs.
Then you just need to deal with the occasional outlaw.You may also want to deploy Samba servers to the local offices and back them up to a central server regularly.
Use this for personal shares and anything that is primarily used ONLY in the local office.In most cases, I doubt that "the single person" working on Project X at Remote Site A needs to work off of a centralized copy of their document.
Do you really need to share this document across your entire organization?
Let the employee keep their file on the local offices share.
Let a employee or a manager share it with the entire department.
Let the director share it with sales.In the end, you may find one small part of the organization that REALLY needs a naming or numbering convention.
You can address that when they approach you.
For now, you need to stop everyone from treating the company share like their own desktop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285949</id>
	<title>WebDav</title>
	<author>SplashMyBandit</author>
	<datestamp>1244630880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are a few options:<ul>
<li>
For relatively unstructured data without versioning you could serve them over HTTP with WebDAV (Apache) and use your existing HTTP security mechanisms. You wouldn't believe how relieved I've often been when I can get my (secured) resources from home-base while located at a clients site.
</li><li>
My outfit uses KnowledgeTree for versioned stuff (http://www.knowledgetree.com/)
</li><li>
Or you could embrace your dark-side and use Microsoft SharePoint (plus, with all the Microsoft bugs you'd have a job for life until your employeer goes bust). If you are a friend to your company you won't do this, plus your outfit has engineers and the good ones can spot trash solutions.
</li></ul><p>
If you users are naming their files with strange characters in them (assuming it's not due to Samba) then they will just have to live with it, you won't have time to sort out all the wierd names that (mostly MS-Word) users give to their filenames. The primary objective should be to give your users access to the files. Making the directory listing pretty ought to be a secondary concern.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a few options : For relatively unstructured data without versioning you could serve them over HTTP with WebDAV ( Apache ) and use your existing HTTP security mechanisms .
You would n't believe how relieved I 've often been when I can get my ( secured ) resources from home-base while located at a clients site .
My outfit uses KnowledgeTree for versioned stuff ( http : //www.knowledgetree.com/ ) Or you could embrace your dark-side and use Microsoft SharePoint ( plus , with all the Microsoft bugs you 'd have a job for life until your employeer goes bust ) .
If you are a friend to your company you wo n't do this , plus your outfit has engineers and the good ones can spot trash solutions .
If you users are naming their files with strange characters in them ( assuming it 's not due to Samba ) then they will just have to live with it , you wo n't have time to sort out all the wierd names that ( mostly MS-Word ) users give to their filenames .
The primary objective should be to give your users access to the files .
Making the directory listing pretty ought to be a secondary concern .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a few options:

For relatively unstructured data without versioning you could serve them over HTTP with WebDAV (Apache) and use your existing HTTP security mechanisms.
You wouldn't believe how relieved I've often been when I can get my (secured) resources from home-base while located at a clients site.
My outfit uses KnowledgeTree for versioned stuff (http://www.knowledgetree.com/)

Or you could embrace your dark-side and use Microsoft SharePoint (plus, with all the Microsoft bugs you'd have a job for life until your employeer goes bust).
If you are a friend to your company you won't do this, plus your outfit has engineers and the good ones can spot trash solutions.
If you users are naming their files with strange characters in them (assuming it's not due to Samba) then they will just have to live with it, you won't have time to sort out all the wierd names that (mostly MS-Word) users give to their filenames.
The primary objective should be to give your users access to the files.
Making the directory listing pretty ought to be a secondary concern.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285819</id>
	<title>Your Website</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot the link to your website: www.nasa.gov</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot the link to your website : www.nasa.gov</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot the link to your website: www.nasa.gov</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287693</id>
	<title>Re:Google Appliance</title>
	<author>VTBlue</author>
	<datestamp>1244641440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google them? <a href="http://www.google.com/enterprise/search/gsa.html" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/enterprise/search/gsa.html</a> [google.com]</p> </div><p>Try Search Server 2008 Express from Microsoft.  Although it has no hard limits, it can index upto a 1 million documents before you have to scale out.  Best of all it is free!</p><p>If you need high availability, redundancy, fail-over or more document support, look at the standard version of the product or consider SharePoint 2007/2010 or FAST.</p><p><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/enterprisesearch/en/us/search-server-express.aspx#none" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/enterprisesearch/en/us/search-server-express.aspx#none</a> [microsoft.com]</p><p>msg me, if you have questions, I work at Microsoft.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google them ?
http : //www.google.com/enterprise/search/gsa.html [ google.com ] Try Search Server 2008 Express from Microsoft .
Although it has no hard limits , it can index upto a 1 million documents before you have to scale out .
Best of all it is free ! If you need high availability , redundancy , fail-over or more document support , look at the standard version of the product or consider SharePoint 2007/2010 or FAST.http : //www.microsoft.com/enterprisesearch/en/us/search-server-express.aspx # none [ microsoft.com ] msg me , if you have questions , I work at Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google them?
http://www.google.com/enterprise/search/gsa.html [google.com] Try Search Server 2008 Express from Microsoft.
Although it has no hard limits, it can index upto a 1 million documents before you have to scale out.
Best of all it is free!If you need high availability, redundancy, fail-over or more document support, look at the standard version of the product or consider SharePoint 2007/2010 or FAST.http://www.microsoft.com/enterprisesearch/en/us/search-server-express.aspx#none [microsoft.com]msg me, if you have questions, I work at Microsoft.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287125</id>
	<title>WAN Optimisation - Riverbed &amp; Cisco WAAS</title>
	<author>kava\_kicks</author>
	<datestamp>1244637300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not going to help you with your 'finding the right document' problem, but it is essential for your remote offices to be able to open (and save) those documents in a reasonable time. It will also have the added benefit of dramatically reducing your WAN traffic (think 50\% reduction).

When I initially trialled these, Riverbed was miles ahead of Cisco. That was 2 years ago, but they are still the only one with a remote client and a few other tricks.

Well worth the investigation &amp; money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not going to help you with your 'finding the right document ' problem , but it is essential for your remote offices to be able to open ( and save ) those documents in a reasonable time .
It will also have the added benefit of dramatically reducing your WAN traffic ( think 50 \ % reduction ) .
When I initially trialled these , Riverbed was miles ahead of Cisco .
That was 2 years ago , but they are still the only one with a remote client and a few other tricks .
Well worth the investigation &amp; money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not going to help you with your 'finding the right document' problem, but it is essential for your remote offices to be able to open (and save) those documents in a reasonable time.
It will also have the added benefit of dramatically reducing your WAN traffic (think 50\% reduction).
When I initially trialled these, Riverbed was miles ahead of Cisco.
That was 2 years ago, but they are still the only one with a remote client and a few other tricks.
Well worth the investigation &amp; money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288171</id>
	<title>Document Management System??</title>
	<author>bytethese</author>
	<datestamp>1244644920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about Desksite (formerly iManage) or PC Docs?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about Desksite ( formerly iManage ) or PC Docs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about Desksite (formerly iManage) or PC Docs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28291665</id>
	<title>DMXchange/DMVault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244727000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since you mention you are an Aerospace company - are you managing CAD documents? Which can be a head ache because of all the dependencies - Assembly, Parts, Drawings.  CAD data can also have some very funky naming conventions - especially the older systems like CATIA V4 and CADDS 5.</p><p>We have developed a distributed doc mgmt/vaulting system based on Open Source technologies (Apache, MySQL, Perl, etc...) called DMXchange - that we currently market and sell as a product with services.  All of the source code is included and open.</p><p>Given that you are looking to access the documents from many sites which are connected over a WAN - most of the client/server based approaches will not work very well.  For more info see www.dmforge.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you mention you are an Aerospace company - are you managing CAD documents ?
Which can be a head ache because of all the dependencies - Assembly , Parts , Drawings .
CAD data can also have some very funky naming conventions - especially the older systems like CATIA V4 and CADDS 5.We have developed a distributed doc mgmt/vaulting system based on Open Source technologies ( Apache , MySQL , Perl , etc... ) called DMXchange - that we currently market and sell as a product with services .
All of the source code is included and open.Given that you are looking to access the documents from many sites which are connected over a WAN - most of the client/server based approaches will not work very well .
For more info see www.dmforge.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you mention you are an Aerospace company - are you managing CAD documents?
Which can be a head ache because of all the dependencies - Assembly, Parts, Drawings.
CAD data can also have some very funky naming conventions - especially the older systems like CATIA V4 and CADDS 5.We have developed a distributed doc mgmt/vaulting system based on Open Source technologies (Apache, MySQL, Perl, etc...) called DMXchange - that we currently market and sell as a product with services.
All of the source code is included and open.Given that you are looking to access the documents from many sites which are connected over a WAN - most of the client/server based approaches will not work very well.
For more info see www.dmforge.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289069</id>
	<title>Simple is Best</title>
	<author>Diagoras of Melos</author>
	<datestamp>1244652840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I decommissioned a document management system at my client, a smallish law firm, because the system was too complicated, insecure, and expensive. Updating it to run w/ the latest version of MS-Office would have cost thousand$ just for the s/w. We replaced it with Google Search, and we defined a file hierarchy and naming convention for all documents created after the switchover. Client is very happy, their file access is more efficient, and they saved a bundle of money on administration, not to mention all the h/w and s/w they never bought.</p><p>Obviously documents are the lifeblood of any law firm. These guys only have about 100,000 or so, less than the aerospace company in question, but the lesson applies. It's extremely unlikely the IT admin of the aerospace company has the resources to manage, much less install, a proprietary document management system.</p><p>The ONLY reason to have a formal document management system with a database (like Microsoft SQL *ugh*) is to control access. But access control is something that really, really should be done through the directory. So unless you're NASA or another organization with many, many millions of documents and a legally mandated auditing requirement, there's no reason to make this more complicated than necessary. And even then....</p><p>Of course, if we're talking about images with no searchable text, that's another story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I decommissioned a document management system at my client , a smallish law firm , because the system was too complicated , insecure , and expensive .
Updating it to run w/ the latest version of MS-Office would have cost thousand $ just for the s/w .
We replaced it with Google Search , and we defined a file hierarchy and naming convention for all documents created after the switchover .
Client is very happy , their file access is more efficient , and they saved a bundle of money on administration , not to mention all the h/w and s/w they never bought.Obviously documents are the lifeblood of any law firm .
These guys only have about 100,000 or so , less than the aerospace company in question , but the lesson applies .
It 's extremely unlikely the IT admin of the aerospace company has the resources to manage , much less install , a proprietary document management system.The ONLY reason to have a formal document management system with a database ( like Microsoft SQL * ugh * ) is to control access .
But access control is something that really , really should be done through the directory .
So unless you 're NASA or another organization with many , many millions of documents and a legally mandated auditing requirement , there 's no reason to make this more complicated than necessary .
And even then....Of course , if we 're talking about images with no searchable text , that 's another story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I decommissioned a document management system at my client, a smallish law firm, because the system was too complicated, insecure, and expensive.
Updating it to run w/ the latest version of MS-Office would have cost thousand$ just for the s/w.
We replaced it with Google Search, and we defined a file hierarchy and naming convention for all documents created after the switchover.
Client is very happy, their file access is more efficient, and they saved a bundle of money on administration, not to mention all the h/w and s/w they never bought.Obviously documents are the lifeblood of any law firm.
These guys only have about 100,000 or so, less than the aerospace company in question, but the lesson applies.
It's extremely unlikely the IT admin of the aerospace company has the resources to manage, much less install, a proprietary document management system.The ONLY reason to have a formal document management system with a database (like Microsoft SQL *ugh*) is to control access.
But access control is something that really, really should be done through the directory.
So unless you're NASA or another organization with many, many millions of documents and a legally mandated auditing requirement, there's no reason to make this more complicated than necessary.
And even then....Of course, if we're talking about images with no searchable text, that's another story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285655</id>
	<title>How not to do it</title>
	<author>Daimanta</author>
	<datestamp>1244629980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Store it on a single FAT32 partition and hope for the best. Only meant for people with guts or really really nice bosses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Store it on a single FAT32 partition and hope for the best .
Only meant for people with guts or really really nice bosses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Store it on a single FAT32 partition and hope for the best.
Only meant for people with guts or really really nice bosses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286505</id>
	<title>Mac OS X Server - Spotlight Server</title>
	<author>Gary W. Longsine</author>
	<datestamp>1244633700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since your organization probably has Windows clients, you can only long for something as nice as <a href="http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/features/spotlight-server.html" title="apple.com">Mac OS X Spotlight Server</a> [apple.com]. <br> <br>

Google Search Appliance is definitely what you want.
<br> <br>
If you have a mid sized company you definitely don't have the surplus of highly talented systems administrator talent laying about to run one of the document management systems that others here are likely to suggest.  Be very careful going down the document management server path.  It's far, far more work than you think it will be, than the vendor will tell you it is.  Not simply more work for you, but for your IT staff and your users, too.
<br> <br>
The Google Search Appliance, by contrast, is "fire and forget".  Plug it in.  Turn it on.  Patch it when Google suggests you do so.  That's about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since your organization probably has Windows clients , you can only long for something as nice as Mac OS X Spotlight Server [ apple.com ] .
Google Search Appliance is definitely what you want .
If you have a mid sized company you definitely do n't have the surplus of highly talented systems administrator talent laying about to run one of the document management systems that others here are likely to suggest .
Be very careful going down the document management server path .
It 's far , far more work than you think it will be , than the vendor will tell you it is .
Not simply more work for you , but for your IT staff and your users , too .
The Google Search Appliance , by contrast , is " fire and forget " .
Plug it in .
Turn it on .
Patch it when Google suggests you do so .
That 's about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since your organization probably has Windows clients, you can only long for something as nice as Mac OS X Spotlight Server [apple.com].
Google Search Appliance is definitely what you want.
If you have a mid sized company you definitely don't have the surplus of highly talented systems administrator talent laying about to run one of the document management systems that others here are likely to suggest.
Be very careful going down the document management server path.
It's far, far more work than you think it will be, than the vendor will tell you it is.
Not simply more work for you, but for your IT staff and your users, too.
The Google Search Appliance, by contrast, is "fire and forget".
Plug it in.
Turn it on.
Patch it when Google suggests you do so.
That's about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28292723</id>
	<title>From someone who has been down this road</title>
	<author>CompMD</author>
	<datestamp>1244731380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Teamcenter.  It freaking rules.  Also, as evil as StarTeam is, it will do the job for you as well.</p><p>I have been a user/admin of both Teamcenter and StarTeam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Teamcenter .
It freaking rules .
Also , as evil as StarTeam is , it will do the job for you as well.I have been a user/admin of both Teamcenter and StarTeam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Teamcenter.
It freaking rules.
Also, as evil as StarTeam is, it will do the job for you as well.I have been a user/admin of both Teamcenter and StarTeam.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28291015</id>
	<title>Re:There is a right way.</title>
	<author>nil\_orally</author>
	<datestamp>1244719500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why are you being helpful? This is Slashdot.

Gotta agree though. There is a time to call in the professionals. Not having one got you into this mess, so you can't get out of it without one. No amount of software will replace a Librarian who will how it should be fixed and implemented.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you being helpful ?
This is Slashdot .
Got ta agree though .
There is a time to call in the professionals .
Not having one got you into this mess , so you ca n't get out of it without one .
No amount of software will replace a Librarian who will how it should be fixed and implemented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you being helpful?
This is Slashdot.
Gotta agree though.
There is a time to call in the professionals.
Not having one got you into this mess, so you can't get out of it without one.
No amount of software will replace a Librarian who will how it should be fixed and implemented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288901</id>
	<title>Scripting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244651280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're using some kind of *nix machine to host smb you could script a perl/bash script to find all files in/under a directory, pars the file name, make it all lower case, turn spaces to \_, take whole words and add them to the meta data (for Mac OS X Spotlight or any indexing), and use an index server of some kind...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're using some kind of * nix machine to host smb you could script a perl/bash script to find all files in/under a directory , pars the file name , make it all lower case , turn spaces to \ _ , take whole words and add them to the meta data ( for Mac OS X Spotlight or any indexing ) , and use an index server of some kind.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're using some kind of *nix machine to host smb you could script a perl/bash script to find all files in/under a directory, pars the file name, make it all lower case, turn spaces to \_, take whole words and add them to the meta data (for Mac OS X Spotlight or any indexing), and use an index server of some kind...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288403</id>
	<title>You need a Document Management System...</title>
	<author>Derwood5555</author>
	<datestamp>1244646600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or DMS.  Commercial packages include Docs Open, and Soft Solutions.<br>Open Source DMS = <a href="http://mydms.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">http://mydms.sourceforge.net/</a> [sourceforge.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or DMS .
Commercial packages include Docs Open , and Soft Solutions.Open Source DMS = http : //mydms.sourceforge.net/ [ sourceforge.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or DMS.
Commercial packages include Docs Open, and Soft Solutions.Open Source DMS = http://mydms.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287159</id>
	<title>SharePoint</title>
	<author>rennerik</author>
	<datestamp>1244637540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, I know it's been mentioned before.  Yes, I know it's Microsoft.  But SharePoint is an excellent document management system.  It supports clustering natively, load balancing, search, information rights management, web editing for most Office formats, InfoPath web-integration.  Users can also save natively to SP via WEBDAV through Office apps directly, or through Explorer.  There's a whole crapload more that you may want to check out at the SP site.<br>
<br>
To get yourself organized and imported, there are<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net libraries available for you to natively access SP and manipulate the whole system via scripts.  Importing and exporting files is a cinch using these APIs.  There's also exposed web services via SOAP that let you do the same thing.  And, in the end, there's the actual SQL backend that is very straight-forward so if you don't want to use the SOAP or SP<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net libraries, you can manipulate the database directly.  <br>
<br>
So no, you are not locked in.

And, the licensing cost is the most reasonable out of all the document management software out there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I know it 's been mentioned before .
Yes , I know it 's Microsoft .
But SharePoint is an excellent document management system .
It supports clustering natively , load balancing , search , information rights management , web editing for most Office formats , InfoPath web-integration .
Users can also save natively to SP via WEBDAV through Office apps directly , or through Explorer .
There 's a whole crapload more that you may want to check out at the SP site .
To get yourself organized and imported , there are .Net libraries available for you to natively access SP and manipulate the whole system via scripts .
Importing and exporting files is a cinch using these APIs .
There 's also exposed web services via SOAP that let you do the same thing .
And , in the end , there 's the actual SQL backend that is very straight-forward so if you do n't want to use the SOAP or SP .Net libraries , you can manipulate the database directly .
So no , you are not locked in .
And , the licensing cost is the most reasonable out of all the document management software out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I know it's been mentioned before.
Yes, I know it's Microsoft.
But SharePoint is an excellent document management system.
It supports clustering natively, load balancing, search, information rights management, web editing for most Office formats, InfoPath web-integration.
Users can also save natively to SP via WEBDAV through Office apps directly, or through Explorer.
There's a whole crapload more that you may want to check out at the SP site.
To get yourself organized and imported, there are .Net libraries available for you to natively access SP and manipulate the whole system via scripts.
Importing and exporting files is a cinch using these APIs.
There's also exposed web services via SOAP that let you do the same thing.
And, in the end, there's the actual SQL backend that is very straight-forward so if you don't want to use the SOAP or SP .Net libraries, you can manipulate the database directly.
So no, you are not locked in.
And, the licensing cost is the most reasonable out of all the document management software out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28292709</id>
	<title>Re:Google to the rescue?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244731320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are in exactly the same boat.  Same business and we have the same issues.  We've been using an open source alternative. It started on Linux which sounds like would work for you since your already using samba.  The product name is Knowledgetree.  We also have a document control person that manages a lot of business critical docs but there are many things that the users can manage themselves.</p><p>Here's the link to get the community edition (free) http://www.knowledgetree.com/community-download</p><p>I feel your pain, but this has worked pretty well for us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are in exactly the same boat .
Same business and we have the same issues .
We 've been using an open source alternative .
It started on Linux which sounds like would work for you since your already using samba .
The product name is Knowledgetree .
We also have a document control person that manages a lot of business critical docs but there are many things that the users can manage themselves.Here 's the link to get the community edition ( free ) http : //www.knowledgetree.com/community-downloadI feel your pain , but this has worked pretty well for us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are in exactly the same boat.
Same business and we have the same issues.
We've been using an open source alternative.
It started on Linux which sounds like would work for you since your already using samba.
The product name is Knowledgetree.
We also have a document control person that manages a lot of business critical docs but there are many things that the users can manage themselves.Here's the link to get the community edition (free) http://www.knowledgetree.com/community-downloadI feel your pain, but this has worked pretty well for us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28292069</id>
	<title>ONBASE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244729100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Onbase from Hyland</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Onbase from Hyland</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Onbase from Hyland</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288273</id>
	<title>First, you need a procedure, not a "Solution"</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1244645460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, you're potentially dealing with more than one problem here you're trying to solve: slowness, and naming convention. I'm guessing they're somewhat related (large directory listings due to lack of organization), but there might be a deeper infrastructure issue that needs to be dealt with, too.</p><p>As for organizing files, You need a naming convention for your project files, first and foremost. Throwing a bunch of disparate files at a CMS is going to do nothing but complicate things more (from a sane-management perspective).</p><p>Data categorization is key. You need to figure out a way to organize it in a fashion which is both contextual to how people use it as well as how it relates to the other data (in, say, a project).</p><p>For instance, you will want (at a minimum) the equivalent of user-level and group-level data shares. This would, in all likelihood, get kind of tricky with shifting working groups. For this there are multiple ways to use ACLs (as opposed to just user/group/all permissions) within Samba (with or without shackling the machine to a Windows domain/authentication server). ext3 and XFS both have the ability to use ACLs (XFS natively), last I checked. Ultimately, this would probably be better than just using user/group, as it would be more extensible.</p><p>As for a Solution...</p><p>Something to look into specific to samba, is the "veto files" directive for smb.conf. It is per-share. I am uncertain whether it supports regex (it didn't in early 2005 when I last used it), if it did it could be very useful for enforcing a specific namespace (going forward).</p><p>I would recommend "enforcing" namespace. While this is likely a self-created problem (ie you or your predecessor did not set things up properly in the first place), you really need to push to your users the importance of this. You need to tell them "organize your files, it'll make things faster" if there's any bitching.</p><p>There was an article in LinuxMagazine a while ago about <a href="http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7336" title="linux-mag.com">determining the age of data</a> [linux-mag.com]. Utilizing this in some sort of auto-sort script to move "old" data to a "pre$date" directory within the original messy directory might speed things up. Also, archiving (or at least moving it to an "old shit" directory) past, unused data is important. It eases the "human element" of data organization.</p><p>Projects should all have a reference number (because there is, in all certainty, hard paper associated with the projects, and sometimes you need to cross reference). Keeping this consistent is important. Use what works, keep it short/demarked so users don't avoid using them. I like each project folder to have the project number to relate to contract/etc. start (short) date (eg. 080112 for Jan 12th, '08) followed by a 2-3 digit number (depending on how many projects are started per day) followed by major revision. End result: something like "080112.01.a Jennings Construction" Or organize by client ID. Or something.</p><p>Requiring and/or encouraging project naming conventions through the managers (at the bequest of your manager/CIO/whomever, or just pleading) might also be worth a try. One department out of 5 doing it would be better than none.</p><p>IMO, once you've reached this step, you can consider putting it in a CMS to help perpetuate/encourage the organization. But remember that a CMS is not a panacea, and might even complicate things further (ie, instead of navigating to a file, -everyone- just searches the whole index, slowing things down further).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , you 're potentially dealing with more than one problem here you 're trying to solve : slowness , and naming convention .
I 'm guessing they 're somewhat related ( large directory listings due to lack of organization ) , but there might be a deeper infrastructure issue that needs to be dealt with , too.As for organizing files , You need a naming convention for your project files , first and foremost .
Throwing a bunch of disparate files at a CMS is going to do nothing but complicate things more ( from a sane-management perspective ) .Data categorization is key .
You need to figure out a way to organize it in a fashion which is both contextual to how people use it as well as how it relates to the other data ( in , say , a project ) .For instance , you will want ( at a minimum ) the equivalent of user-level and group-level data shares .
This would , in all likelihood , get kind of tricky with shifting working groups .
For this there are multiple ways to use ACLs ( as opposed to just user/group/all permissions ) within Samba ( with or without shackling the machine to a Windows domain/authentication server ) .
ext3 and XFS both have the ability to use ACLs ( XFS natively ) , last I checked .
Ultimately , this would probably be better than just using user/group , as it would be more extensible.As for a Solution...Something to look into specific to samba , is the " veto files " directive for smb.conf .
It is per-share .
I am uncertain whether it supports regex ( it did n't in early 2005 when I last used it ) , if it did it could be very useful for enforcing a specific namespace ( going forward ) .I would recommend " enforcing " namespace .
While this is likely a self-created problem ( ie you or your predecessor did not set things up properly in the first place ) , you really need to push to your users the importance of this .
You need to tell them " organize your files , it 'll make things faster " if there 's any bitching.There was an article in LinuxMagazine a while ago about determining the age of data [ linux-mag.com ] .
Utilizing this in some sort of auto-sort script to move " old " data to a " pre $ date " directory within the original messy directory might speed things up .
Also , archiving ( or at least moving it to an " old shit " directory ) past , unused data is important .
It eases the " human element " of data organization.Projects should all have a reference number ( because there is , in all certainty , hard paper associated with the projects , and sometimes you need to cross reference ) .
Keeping this consistent is important .
Use what works , keep it short/demarked so users do n't avoid using them .
I like each project folder to have the project number to relate to contract/etc .
start ( short ) date ( eg .
080112 for Jan 12th , '08 ) followed by a 2-3 digit number ( depending on how many projects are started per day ) followed by major revision .
End result : something like " 080112.01.a Jennings Construction " Or organize by client ID .
Or something.Requiring and/or encouraging project naming conventions through the managers ( at the bequest of your manager/CIO/whomever , or just pleading ) might also be worth a try .
One department out of 5 doing it would be better than none.IMO , once you 've reached this step , you can consider putting it in a CMS to help perpetuate/encourage the organization .
But remember that a CMS is not a panacea , and might even complicate things further ( ie , instead of navigating to a file , -everyone- just searches the whole index , slowing things down further ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, you're potentially dealing with more than one problem here you're trying to solve: slowness, and naming convention.
I'm guessing they're somewhat related (large directory listings due to lack of organization), but there might be a deeper infrastructure issue that needs to be dealt with, too.As for organizing files, You need a naming convention for your project files, first and foremost.
Throwing a bunch of disparate files at a CMS is going to do nothing but complicate things more (from a sane-management perspective).Data categorization is key.
You need to figure out a way to organize it in a fashion which is both contextual to how people use it as well as how it relates to the other data (in, say, a project).For instance, you will want (at a minimum) the equivalent of user-level and group-level data shares.
This would, in all likelihood, get kind of tricky with shifting working groups.
For this there are multiple ways to use ACLs (as opposed to just user/group/all permissions) within Samba (with or without shackling the machine to a Windows domain/authentication server).
ext3 and XFS both have the ability to use ACLs (XFS natively), last I checked.
Ultimately, this would probably be better than just using user/group, as it would be more extensible.As for a Solution...Something to look into specific to samba, is the "veto files" directive for smb.conf.
It is per-share.
I am uncertain whether it supports regex (it didn't in early 2005 when I last used it), if it did it could be very useful for enforcing a specific namespace (going forward).I would recommend "enforcing" namespace.
While this is likely a self-created problem (ie you or your predecessor did not set things up properly in the first place), you really need to push to your users the importance of this.
You need to tell them "organize your files, it'll make things faster" if there's any bitching.There was an article in LinuxMagazine a while ago about determining the age of data [linux-mag.com].
Utilizing this in some sort of auto-sort script to move "old" data to a "pre$date" directory within the original messy directory might speed things up.
Also, archiving (or at least moving it to an "old shit" directory) past, unused data is important.
It eases the "human element" of data organization.Projects should all have a reference number (because there is, in all certainty, hard paper associated with the projects, and sometimes you need to cross reference).
Keeping this consistent is important.
Use what works, keep it short/demarked so users don't avoid using them.
I like each project folder to have the project number to relate to contract/etc.
start (short) date (eg.
080112 for Jan 12th, '08) followed by a 2-3 digit number (depending on how many projects are started per day) followed by major revision.
End result: something like "080112.01.a Jennings Construction" Or organize by client ID.
Or something.Requiring and/or encouraging project naming conventions through the managers (at the bequest of your manager/CIO/whomever, or just pleading) might also be worth a try.
One department out of 5 doing it would be better than none.IMO, once you've reached this step, you can consider putting it in a CMS to help perpetuate/encourage the organization.
But remember that a CMS is not a panacea, and might even complicate things further (ie, instead of navigating to a file, -everyone- just searches the whole index, slowing things down further).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289933</id>
	<title>Re:Google to the rescue?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244661120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We had a similar situation on a Win fileserver.  They didn't want to install IIS, so I smbmount'ed everything to a Linux box under Apache's doc root. Then, with everything on the intranet, I was able to crawl it for free (using htDig, latter MnogoSearch).  With doc2html and other converters, we now search all our Word, PDF, Excel, PwrPt, html and txt files from any browser.  Works fine but not as slick as Google's search appliance (not free).</p><p>Files that shouldn't be shared can be hidden from the JoeUser account used to smbmount.  Apache can be told not to serve restricted subnets (eg foreign nationals, other divisions on the same campus, the vpn, etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We had a similar situation on a Win fileserver .
They did n't want to install IIS , so I smbmount'ed everything to a Linux box under Apache 's doc root .
Then , with everything on the intranet , I was able to crawl it for free ( using htDig , latter MnogoSearch ) .
With doc2html and other converters , we now search all our Word , PDF , Excel , PwrPt , html and txt files from any browser .
Works fine but not as slick as Google 's search appliance ( not free ) .Files that should n't be shared can be hidden from the JoeUser account used to smbmount .
Apache can be told not to serve restricted subnets ( eg foreign nationals , other divisions on the same campus , the vpn , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We had a similar situation on a Win fileserver.
They didn't want to install IIS, so I smbmount'ed everything to a Linux box under Apache's doc root.
Then, with everything on the intranet, I was able to crawl it for free (using htDig, latter MnogoSearch).
With doc2html and other converters, we now search all our Word, PDF, Excel, PwrPt, html and txt files from any browser.
Works fine but not as slick as Google's search appliance (not free).Files that shouldn't be shared can be hidden from the JoeUser account used to smbmount.
Apache can be told not to serve restricted subnets (eg foreign nationals, other divisions on the same campus, the vpn, etc).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285923</id>
	<title>nothing beats a folder structure and naming</title>
	<author>fxdgear</author>
	<datestamp>1244630820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm gonna say nothing beats a proper folder structure and naming convention.
I'd also recommend using svn.
Also spend some time to develop some macros to assist in the creation/saving/retrieval of said documents from the repository.
Maybe create some standard templates too...

just my 2cents!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm gon na say nothing beats a proper folder structure and naming convention .
I 'd also recommend using svn .
Also spend some time to develop some macros to assist in the creation/saving/retrieval of said documents from the repository .
Maybe create some standard templates too.. . just my 2cents !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm gonna say nothing beats a proper folder structure and naming convention.
I'd also recommend using svn.
Also spend some time to develop some macros to assist in the creation/saving/retrieval of said documents from the repository.
Maybe create some standard templates too...

just my 2cents!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285745</id>
	<title>Cygnet</title>
	<author>Rob Kaper</author>
	<datestamp>1244630220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cygnet ECM might work for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cygnet ECM might work for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cygnet ECM might work for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287527</id>
	<title>Use Confluence</title>
	<author>Dani Filth</author>
	<datestamp>1244640240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>or Confluence Hosted: <a href="http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/hosted/" title="atlassian.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/hosted/</a> [atlassian.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>or Confluence Hosted : http : //www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/hosted/ [ atlassian.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or Confluence Hosted: http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/hosted/ [atlassian.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28327987</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>badkarmadayaccount</author>
	<datestamp>1245008760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love the matching sig...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the matching sig.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the matching sig...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286119</id>
	<title>Re:Answered your own question</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1244631480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In all honesty, I tend to agree with what you're implying. A database solution is great, if you put it into place immediately, otherwise you have to spend a lot of time getting all of the items into the database and properly tagged and sorted.<br> <br>

One way or another the work is going to have to be done, the relevant question is how easily will it be maintained, how will it handled increases in size and how easily can it be backed up.<br> <br>

I'm doing this sort of thing right now with my digital images. Thankfully, I can fall back on meta data to do most of the heavy lifting, which just leaves the process of creating subjective tags for pulling up random files and figuring out a decent backup system. I've been doing it all this week and haven't found a proper solution. Which is really a minimal hassle compared to what the OP is dealing with finding the files and reading them and putting them into some reasonable category, presumably many were created by employees no longer at the company.<br> <br>

To boil it all down a bit, make absolutely sure you've got all the tags you're going to want in, a file hierarchy of some sort for storing the physical files, and the thumb screws for anybody that's not willing to do their part. A system doesn't stay neat and organized on it's own, just because it's residing on some sort of database doesn't mean it's automatically easy to find things. Best bet for files is to organize those by roughly date, depending upon how many, that may require by day, week, month or year to keep them in a reasonable place to find.<br> <br>

Take it relatively slow demand that any new files be created within the realm of the new system and make regular effort at putting the older files into the new system in a consistent manner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In all honesty , I tend to agree with what you 're implying .
A database solution is great , if you put it into place immediately , otherwise you have to spend a lot of time getting all of the items into the database and properly tagged and sorted .
One way or another the work is going to have to be done , the relevant question is how easily will it be maintained , how will it handled increases in size and how easily can it be backed up .
I 'm doing this sort of thing right now with my digital images .
Thankfully , I can fall back on meta data to do most of the heavy lifting , which just leaves the process of creating subjective tags for pulling up random files and figuring out a decent backup system .
I 've been doing it all this week and have n't found a proper solution .
Which is really a minimal hassle compared to what the OP is dealing with finding the files and reading them and putting them into some reasonable category , presumably many were created by employees no longer at the company .
To boil it all down a bit , make absolutely sure you 've got all the tags you 're going to want in , a file hierarchy of some sort for storing the physical files , and the thumb screws for anybody that 's not willing to do their part .
A system does n't stay neat and organized on it 's own , just because it 's residing on some sort of database does n't mean it 's automatically easy to find things .
Best bet for files is to organize those by roughly date , depending upon how many , that may require by day , week , month or year to keep them in a reasonable place to find .
Take it relatively slow demand that any new files be created within the realm of the new system and make regular effort at putting the older files into the new system in a consistent manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In all honesty, I tend to agree with what you're implying.
A database solution is great, if you put it into place immediately, otherwise you have to spend a lot of time getting all of the items into the database and properly tagged and sorted.
One way or another the work is going to have to be done, the relevant question is how easily will it be maintained, how will it handled increases in size and how easily can it be backed up.
I'm doing this sort of thing right now with my digital images.
Thankfully, I can fall back on meta data to do most of the heavy lifting, which just leaves the process of creating subjective tags for pulling up random files and figuring out a decent backup system.
I've been doing it all this week and haven't found a proper solution.
Which is really a minimal hassle compared to what the OP is dealing with finding the files and reading them and putting them into some reasonable category, presumably many were created by employees no longer at the company.
To boil it all down a bit, make absolutely sure you've got all the tags you're going to want in, a file hierarchy of some sort for storing the physical files, and the thumb screws for anybody that's not willing to do their part.
A system doesn't stay neat and organized on it's own, just because it's residing on some sort of database doesn't mean it's automatically easy to find things.
Best bet for files is to organize those by roughly date, depending upon how many, that may require by day, week, month or year to keep them in a reasonable place to find.
Take it relatively slow demand that any new files be created within the realm of the new system and make regular effort at putting the older files into the new system in a consistent manner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28291081</id>
	<title>Re:Google to the rescue?</title>
	<author>BlackPignouf</author>
	<datestamp>1244720460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I might come a bit late to the party, but I'd like to say that I developed a free alternative to Google Search Appliance :<br><a href="http://github.com/EricDuminil/picolena/tree/master" title="github.com">http://github.com/EricDuminil/picolena/tree/master</a> [github.com]</p><p>It's a small Ruby on Rails app (~1kLOC), uses either Ferret or Sphinx and implements full text search for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pdf,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.docx,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.odt,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xls,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ods,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ppt,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pptx,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.odp,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.rtf,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.html, and metadata from music, pictures and videos.<br>It also includes language recognition, files thumbnailing and cache &#224; la google.</p><p>We use it in our research center to index ~100 000 documents from 50 users on a Samba share, and we get relevant results in ~0.1s<br>Users don't need to learn any convention, they find what they want fast, and can use it as easily as Google.</p><p>If you're interested, drop me an email from Github.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I might come a bit late to the party , but I 'd like to say that I developed a free alternative to Google Search Appliance : http : //github.com/EricDuminil/picolena/tree/master [ github.com ] It 's a small Ruby on Rails app ( ~ 1kLOC ) , uses either Ferret or Sphinx and implements full text search for .pdf , .doc , .docx , .odt , .xls , .ods , .ppt , .pptx , .odp , .rtf , .html , and metadata from music , pictures and videos.It also includes language recognition , files thumbnailing and cache   la google.We use it in our research center to index ~ 100 000 documents from 50 users on a Samba share , and we get relevant results in ~ 0.1sUsers do n't need to learn any convention , they find what they want fast , and can use it as easily as Google.If you 're interested , drop me an email from Github .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might come a bit late to the party, but I'd like to say that I developed a free alternative to Google Search Appliance :http://github.com/EricDuminil/picolena/tree/master [github.com]It's a small Ruby on Rails app (~1kLOC), uses either Ferret or Sphinx and implements full text search for .pdf, .doc, .docx, .odt, .xls, .ods, .ppt, .pptx, .odp, .rtf, .html, and metadata from music, pictures and videos.It also includes language recognition, files thumbnailing and cache à la google.We use it in our research center to index ~100 000 documents from 50 users on a Samba share, and we get relevant results in ~0.1sUsers don't need to learn any convention, they find what they want fast, and can use it as easily as Google.If you're interested, drop me an email from Github.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286177</id>
	<title>Aerospace QMS</title>
	<author>dwarf75</author>
	<datestamp>1244631780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What worries me more than anything else is that you claim to be a mid-sized aerospace company. If you are having problems finding documents, what happened to your traceability processes necessary for your QMS and how do you guarantee that employees use up-to-date documents? How did you handle the process in the past??? And, what does your QMS stipulate for records and traceability?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What worries me more than anything else is that you claim to be a mid-sized aerospace company .
If you are having problems finding documents , what happened to your traceability processes necessary for your QMS and how do you guarantee that employees use up-to-date documents ?
How did you handle the process in the past ? ? ?
And , what does your QMS stipulate for records and traceability ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What worries me more than anything else is that you claim to be a mid-sized aerospace company.
If you are having problems finding documents, what happened to your traceability processes necessary for your QMS and how do you guarantee that employees use up-to-date documents?
How did you handle the process in the past???
And, what does your QMS stipulate for records and traceability?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287909</id>
	<title>Alfresco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244642820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go with alfresco....can be a pain to setup but its a clustering champ</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go with alfresco....can be a pain to setup but its a clustering champ</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go with alfresco....can be a pain to setup but its a clustering champ</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287219</id>
	<title>Talk to a Large Lawfirm IT department</title>
	<author>thinktech</author>
	<datestamp>1244637960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lawfirms are experts at managing millions of documents using document management software. If you want state-of-the-art document management. Then the software that lawfirms use is what you're looking for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawfirms are experts at managing millions of documents using document management software .
If you want state-of-the-art document management .
Then the software that lawfirms use is what you 're looking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawfirms are experts at managing millions of documents using document management software.
If you want state-of-the-art document management.
Then the software that lawfirms use is what you're looking for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288175</id>
	<title>Re:Google Appliance</title>
	<author>scooterhanson</author>
	<datestamp>1244644980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A search appliance would be great, but there's not really a lot of structure on top of an index unless coupled with some other sort of knowledge-management infrastructure.
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.yakabod.com/" title="yakabod.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.yakabod.com/</a> [yakabod.com]  is a company that I've heard about that has been doing this kind of thing for the US intelligence agencies for a while -- coupling a search appliance with taxonomy / folksonomy and some other kinds of voodoo.  I've heard these guys refer to it as a "knowledge network" in the sense that a social networking app keeps you aware of what your friends and colleagues are doing, but the knowledge networking app keeps you aware of what your whole business is doing.
</p><p>
There's always Sharepoint and Documentum type solutions, but trust me, brother, I've been down those roads before and I don't wish them on my enemies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A search appliance would be great , but there 's not really a lot of structure on top of an index unless coupled with some other sort of knowledge-management infrastructure .
http : //www.yakabod.com/ [ yakabod.com ] is a company that I 've heard about that has been doing this kind of thing for the US intelligence agencies for a while -- coupling a search appliance with taxonomy / folksonomy and some other kinds of voodoo .
I 've heard these guys refer to it as a " knowledge network " in the sense that a social networking app keeps you aware of what your friends and colleagues are doing , but the knowledge networking app keeps you aware of what your whole business is doing .
There 's always Sharepoint and Documentum type solutions , but trust me , brother , I 've been down those roads before and I do n't wish them on my enemies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A search appliance would be great, but there's not really a lot of structure on top of an index unless coupled with some other sort of knowledge-management infrastructure.
http://www.yakabod.com/ [yakabod.com]  is a company that I've heard about that has been doing this kind of thing for the US intelligence agencies for a while -- coupling a search appliance with taxonomy / folksonomy and some other kinds of voodoo.
I've heard these guys refer to it as a "knowledge network" in the sense that a social networking app keeps you aware of what your friends and colleagues are doing, but the knowledge networking app keeps you aware of what your whole business is doing.
There's always Sharepoint and Documentum type solutions, but trust me, brother, I've been down those roads before and I don't wish them on my enemies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286277</id>
	<title>Re:Google Appliance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244632380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing I don't like about the GSA is that the licensing requires you to pay per year, otherwise the appliance will stop working:</p><p><i>At the end of your license term, the Google Search Appliance expires and no longer searches or serves data.</i></p><p>Source: <a href="http://www.google.com/support/gsa/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=18282" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/support/gsa/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=18282</a> [google.com]</p><p>Maybe they give you the appliance at a discounted price which offsets the cost of the licensing, but it is nice to be able to purchase a piece of hardware without having to worry about yearly maintenance fees for it to keep working.  It would be interesting to know whether the appliance can be outright purchased.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I do n't like about the GSA is that the licensing requires you to pay per year , otherwise the appliance will stop working : At the end of your license term , the Google Search Appliance expires and no longer searches or serves data.Source : http : //www.google.com/support/gsa/bin/answer.py ? hl = en&amp;answer = 18282 [ google.com ] Maybe they give you the appliance at a discounted price which offsets the cost of the licensing , but it is nice to be able to purchase a piece of hardware without having to worry about yearly maintenance fees for it to keep working .
It would be interesting to know whether the appliance can be outright purchased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing I don't like about the GSA is that the licensing requires you to pay per year, otherwise the appliance will stop working:At the end of your license term, the Google Search Appliance expires and no longer searches or serves data.Source: http://www.google.com/support/gsa/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=18282 [google.com]Maybe they give you the appliance at a discounted price which offsets the cost of the licensing, but it is nice to be able to purchase a piece of hardware without having to worry about yearly maintenance fees for it to keep working.
It would be interesting to know whether the appliance can be outright purchased.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286227</id>
	<title>Re:SharePoint?</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1244632080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up.  I helped create a tag-based document retrieval system for my former employer using SharePoint.  It actually worked quite well.</p><p>Use the right tool for the job.  It's got a nice interface (that's also very familiar-looking to most users), scales well, and integrates well with MS Office, which (like it or not) is used by 99.99\% of the corporate world.  It also handles non-office files just fine.</p><p>That's not to say that Unix-based solutions don't have their place.  During the migration, I actually employed a series of shell/python scripts to assist with several of the more mundane aspects of the process.  These probably saved us a couple <i>thousand</i> man-hours that would have otherwise been spent categorizing the files.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
I helped create a tag-based document retrieval system for my former employer using SharePoint .
It actually worked quite well.Use the right tool for the job .
It 's got a nice interface ( that 's also very familiar-looking to most users ) , scales well , and integrates well with MS Office , which ( like it or not ) is used by 99.99 \ % of the corporate world .
It also handles non-office files just fine.That 's not to say that Unix-based solutions do n't have their place .
During the migration , I actually employed a series of shell/python scripts to assist with several of the more mundane aspects of the process .
These probably saved us a couple thousand man-hours that would have otherwise been spent categorizing the files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
I helped create a tag-based document retrieval system for my former employer using SharePoint.
It actually worked quite well.Use the right tool for the job.
It's got a nice interface (that's also very familiar-looking to most users), scales well, and integrates well with MS Office, which (like it or not) is used by 99.99\% of the corporate world.
It also handles non-office files just fine.That's not to say that Unix-based solutions don't have their place.
During the migration, I actually employed a series of shell/python scripts to assist with several of the more mundane aspects of the process.
These probably saved us a couple thousand man-hours that would have otherwise been spent categorizing the files.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289109</id>
	<title>multiple points</title>
	<author>mr100percent</author>
	<datestamp>1244653140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to deal with this issue on multiple points</p><p>1. Consider PDF with OCR. That way you can search within files for specific words<br>2. FIle naming. Use a standard like date\_headline.pdf<br>3. Hire a library sciences major, as an earlier poster suggested. They spend years studying how to organize and retrieve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to deal with this issue on multiple points1 .
Consider PDF with OCR .
That way you can search within files for specific words2 .
FIle naming .
Use a standard like date \ _headline.pdf3 .
Hire a library sciences major , as an earlier poster suggested .
They spend years studying how to organize and retrieve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to deal with this issue on multiple points1.
Consider PDF with OCR.
That way you can search within files for specific words2.
FIle naming.
Use a standard like date\_headline.pdf3.
Hire a library sciences major, as an earlier poster suggested.
They spend years studying how to organize and retrieve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288243</id>
	<title>Want it done right the first time?</title>
	<author>Xadnem</author>
	<datestamp>1244645280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've got this car, and it doesn't run and it's got all these strange bits inside under this hood thingie. . . .


Hire a librarian or someone with a degree in knowledge management who has experience in the corp world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got this car , and it does n't run and it 's got all these strange bits inside under this hood thingie .
. .
. Hire a librarian or someone with a degree in knowledge management who has experience in the corp world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got this car, and it doesn't run and it's got all these strange bits inside under this hood thingie.
. .
.


Hire a librarian or someone with a degree in knowledge management who has experience in the corp world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286607</id>
	<title>try iPhoto</title>
	<author>docbrody</author>
	<datestamp>1244634300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Step 1: Print out all 100 thousand docs and draw different little smiley faces on each of them.  Step 2: scan all your docs back in as jpegs.  Step 3: import all those jpegs into iPhoto and use "Faces" to magically organize them - just like on the television commercial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Step 1 : Print out all 100 thousand docs and draw different little smiley faces on each of them .
Step 2 : scan all your docs back in as jpegs .
Step 3 : import all those jpegs into iPhoto and use " Faces " to magically organize them - just like on the television commercial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step 1: Print out all 100 thousand docs and draw different little smiley faces on each of them.
Step 2: scan all your docs back in as jpegs.
Step 3: import all those jpegs into iPhoto and use "Faces" to magically organize them - just like on the television commercial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285801</id>
	<title>Anonymous Jonas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://cdsware.cern.ch/invenio/index.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //cdsware.cern.ch/invenio/index.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://cdsware.cern.ch/invenio/index.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285697</id>
	<title>Alfresco or SharePoint</title>
	<author>flydpnkrtn</author>
	<datestamp>1244630100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or some other corporate content management system</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or some other corporate content management system</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or some other corporate content management system</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711</id>
	<title>SharePoint?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know I'm gonna get hit for blurting out the Microsoft Solution but...give SharePoint a shot...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I 'm gon na get hit for blurting out the Microsoft Solution but...give SharePoint a shot.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I'm gonna get hit for blurting out the Microsoft Solution but...give SharePoint a shot...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286623</id>
	<title>Re:Document management software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244634420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Most print companies like Xerox have their own proprietary Document management [wikipedia.org] tools you can buy</i></p><p>Document management software is great, but when you have enormous numbers of documents (100s of thousands like in the summary), it becomes necessary to have a content management system in place. Something that's intelligent enough to break the documents up into pieces and allow searches, but something more robust than full-text search.</p><p>We've been using this software called MarkLogic Server (http://marklogic.com). It's an XML database and has a content processing framework for document ingestion. So, basically, assuming that documents are structured similarly, they can be converted into XML so they can be queried with custom weights being applied to content in different portions of the document. The software has built-in Word support so it'll automatically convert<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc files with proper formatting as well as the ability to add custom handlers for other formats including plaintext.</p><p>We're currently managing a couple million documents and generating dynamic documents on the fly for some processes. Since on-the-fly documents may take time to generate, we have a system in place that saves the result in the database which can also be queried at a later date. It's all really cool.</p><p>Of course, there's a bit of a learning curve to writing your own software for it since it uses XQuery, but it's not much harder to learn than SQL, and so far, it seems to be far more powerful.</p><p>Disclaimer: I'm not a shill nor am I being paid in any way by MarkLogic... I'm just seriously blown away by what their technology has enabled us to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most print companies like Xerox have their own proprietary Document management [ wikipedia.org ] tools you can buyDocument management software is great , but when you have enormous numbers of documents ( 100s of thousands like in the summary ) , it becomes necessary to have a content management system in place .
Something that 's intelligent enough to break the documents up into pieces and allow searches , but something more robust than full-text search.We 've been using this software called MarkLogic Server ( http : //marklogic.com ) .
It 's an XML database and has a content processing framework for document ingestion .
So , basically , assuming that documents are structured similarly , they can be converted into XML so they can be queried with custom weights being applied to content in different portions of the document .
The software has built-in Word support so it 'll automatically convert .doc files with proper formatting as well as the ability to add custom handlers for other formats including plaintext.We 're currently managing a couple million documents and generating dynamic documents on the fly for some processes .
Since on-the-fly documents may take time to generate , we have a system in place that saves the result in the database which can also be queried at a later date .
It 's all really cool.Of course , there 's a bit of a learning curve to writing your own software for it since it uses XQuery , but it 's not much harder to learn than SQL , and so far , it seems to be far more powerful.Disclaimer : I 'm not a shill nor am I being paid in any way by MarkLogic... I 'm just seriously blown away by what their technology has enabled us to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most print companies like Xerox have their own proprietary Document management [wikipedia.org] tools you can buyDocument management software is great, but when you have enormous numbers of documents (100s of thousands like in the summary), it becomes necessary to have a content management system in place.
Something that's intelligent enough to break the documents up into pieces and allow searches, but something more robust than full-text search.We've been using this software called MarkLogic Server (http://marklogic.com).
It's an XML database and has a content processing framework for document ingestion.
So, basically, assuming that documents are structured similarly, they can be converted into XML so they can be queried with custom weights being applied to content in different portions of the document.
The software has built-in Word support so it'll automatically convert .doc files with proper formatting as well as the ability to add custom handlers for other formats including plaintext.We're currently managing a couple million documents and generating dynamic documents on the fly for some processes.
Since on-the-fly documents may take time to generate, we have a system in place that saves the result in the database which can also be queried at a later date.
It's all really cool.Of course, there's a bit of a learning curve to writing your own software for it since it uses XQuery, but it's not much harder to learn than SQL, and so far, it seems to be far more powerful.Disclaimer: I'm not a shill nor am I being paid in any way by MarkLogic... I'm just seriously blown away by what their technology has enabled us to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285843</id>
	<title>Indexing and Cataloguing</title>
	<author>Zerocool3001</author>
	<datestamp>1244630580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you don't like the idea of sending your information to google to have it indexed, you can look into some server side applications (with associated client apps) that do the indexing and searching for you. I'm not familiar with Windows ones (although I'm sure there are some) but there are quite a few for Linux and primarily Spotlight for the Mac. The option have the actual indexing done server side would save on your bandwidth tremendously.

You may also want to consider using a different filesystem, one that has indexing capabilities built in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like the idea of sending your information to google to have it indexed , you can look into some server side applications ( with associated client apps ) that do the indexing and searching for you .
I 'm not familiar with Windows ones ( although I 'm sure there are some ) but there are quite a few for Linux and primarily Spotlight for the Mac .
The option have the actual indexing done server side would save on your bandwidth tremendously .
You may also want to consider using a different filesystem , one that has indexing capabilities built in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like the idea of sending your information to google to have it indexed, you can look into some server side applications (with associated client apps) that do the indexing and searching for you.
I'm not familiar with Windows ones (although I'm sure there are some) but there are quite a few for Linux and primarily Spotlight for the Mac.
The option have the actual indexing done server side would save on your bandwidth tremendously.
You may also want to consider using a different filesystem, one that has indexing capabilities built in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289029</id>
	<title>Bring out the Pitchforks and Rope</title>
	<author>moxitek</author>
	<datestamp>1244652360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know that I'll probably get verbally lynched for saying this here, but MOSS 2007 enterpise search is a REALLY nice way of dealing with this . Since MOSS can index your file shares, then all of your users can search for documents contextually using a simple web portal across multiple sites...

I better leave before I'm hanging from the Slashdot tree.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that I 'll probably get verbally lynched for saying this here , but MOSS 2007 enterpise search is a REALLY nice way of dealing with this .
Since MOSS can index your file shares , then all of your users can search for documents contextually using a simple web portal across multiple sites.. . I better leave before I 'm hanging from the Slashdot tree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that I'll probably get verbally lynched for saying this here, but MOSS 2007 enterpise search is a REALLY nice way of dealing with this .
Since MOSS can index your file shares, then all of your users can search for documents contextually using a simple web portal across multiple sites...

I better leave before I'm hanging from the Slashdot tree.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28290095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28320513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28290947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28291081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28294295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28292709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28302843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28327987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28294825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28303657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28292657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28291015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28292119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28294735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28294669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28290835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28304455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28291481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28295675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28291457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_2114220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286177
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28303657
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286607
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285833
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28294669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28302843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286513
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28292657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28290095
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28327987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28291481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288113
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285859
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287401
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288945
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287007
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287931
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285961
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28290835
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286297
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28295675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28294295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28292709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28291457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286429
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28290947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28291081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28289933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286885
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286623
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28304455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288409
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285861
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287553
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287067
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285641
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285793
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285613
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286161
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28320513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287049
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287195
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287693
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28294825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286277
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28291015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28294735
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286059
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288273
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286125
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287171
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287387
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28287243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28292119
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28286193
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28288031
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_2114220.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_2114220.28285985
</commentlist>
</conversation>
