Learned by Reading
In the ICWSM 2009 Weblog Corpus:
Its mediocrity has arguably hampered the evolution of the web and forced many site designers to depend on suboptimal proprietary solutions.
(Parse)
(S1 (S (NP (PRP$ Its) (NN mediocrity))
(VP (AUX has) (ADVP (RB arguably))
(VP (VP (VBN hampered)
(NP (NP (DT the) (NN evolution))
(PP (IN of)
(NP (DT the) (NN web)))))
(CC and)
(VP (VBN forced)
(S (NP (JJ many) (NN site) (NNS designers))
(VP (TO to)
(VP (VB depend)
(PP (IN on)
(NP (JJ suboptimal) (JJ proprietary) (NNS solutions)))
(. .)))
In Wikipedia:
His hypothesis is that open source software is intrinsically optimal for science, and that scientific software companies which provide open source solutions will, through free market competition, eventually displace companies that favor proprietary solutions.
(Parse)
(S1 (S (NP (PRP$ His) (NN hypothesis))
(VP (AUX is)
(SBAR (SBAR (IN that)
(S (NP (JJ open) (NN source) (NN software))
(VP (AUX is)
(ADJP (RB intrinsically) (JJ optimal)
(PP (IN for)
(NP (NN science))))
(, ,) (CC and)
(SBAR (IN that)
(S (NP (NP (JJ scientific) (NN software) (NNS companies))
(SBAR (WHNP (WDT which))
(S (VP (VBP provide)
(NP (JJ open) (NN source) (NNS solutions)))
(VP (MD will) (, ,)
(PP (IN through)
(NP (JJ free) (NN market) (NN competition)))
(, ,)
(VP (ADVP (RB eventually)) (VB displace)
(NP (NP (NNS companies))
(SBAR (WHNP (WDT that))
(S (VP (VBP favor)
(NP (JJ proprietary) (NNS solutions)))
(. .)))
In the ICWSM 2009 Weblog Corpus:
Another factor in BarCast’s decision was that the LocaModa platform runs on open standards and commonly available hardware running Windows, Linux or Apple OSX operating systems, reducing BarCast’s costs and dependency on proprietary solutions.
(Parse)
(S1 (S (NP (NP (DT Another) (NN factor))
(PP (IN in)
(NP (NP (NNP BarCast) (POS 's)) (NN decision))))
(VP (AUX was)
(SBAR (IN that)
(S (NP (DT the) (NNP LocaModa) (NN platform))
(VP (VBZ runs)
(PP (IN on)
(NP (NP (JJ open) (NNS standards)) (CC and)
(NP (ADJP (RB commonly) (JJ available)) (NN hardware) (NN running) (NNS Windows))))
(, ,)
(NP (NNP Linux) (CC or) (NNP Apple) (JJ OSX) (VBG operating) (NNS systems)) (, ,)
(S (VP (VBG reducing)
(NP (NP (NP (NNP BarCast) (POS 's)) (NNS costs)) (CC and)
(NP (NP (NN dependency))
(PP (IN on)
(NP (JJ proprietary) (NNS solutions)))))
(. .)))
In the ICWSM 2009 Weblog Corpus:
“SME versions of heavyweight proprietary solutions generally offer fewer features than their big brother counterparts which is why they are more affordable for the SME.
(Parse)
(S1 (S (NP (NP ('' ') ('' ') (NN SME) (NNS versions))
(PP (IN of)
(NP (JJ heavyweight) (JJ proprietary) (NNS solutions))))
(ADVP (RB generally))
(VP (VBP offer)
(NP (NP (JJR fewer) (NNS features))
(PP (IN than)
(NP (PRP$ their) (JJ big) (NN brother) (NNS counterparts)))
(SBAR (WHNP (WDT which))
(S (VP (AUX is)
(SBAR (WHADVP (WRB why))
(S (NP (PRP they))
(VP (AUX are)
(ADJP (RBR more) (JJ affordable)
(PP (IN for)
(NP (DT the) (NN SME)))
(. .)))
In the ICWSM 2009 Weblog Corpus:
Likewise there are others that have done the same with proprietary solutions.
(Parse)
(S1 (S (ADVP (RB Likewise))
(NP (EX there))
(VP (AUX are)
(NP (NP (NNS others))
(SBAR (WHNP (WDT that))
(S (VP (AUX have)
(VP (AUX done)
(NP (DT the) (JJ same))
(PP (IN with)
(NP (JJ proprietary) (NNS solutions)))
(. .)))
In the ICWSM 2009 Weblog Corpus:
Computer – on – Modules currently utilize x86 models that possess a variety of standards and proprietary solutions.
(Parse)
(S1 (S (NP (NN Computer) (PRN (: -) (ADVP (RB on)) (: -)) (NNS Modules)) (ADVP (RB currently))
(VP (VB utilize)
(NP (NP (CD x86) (NNS models))
(SBAR (WHNP (WDT that))
(S (VP (VBP possess)
(NP (NP (DT a) (NN variety))
(PP (IN of)
(NP (NP (NNS standards)) (CC and)
(NP (JJ proprietary) (NNS solutions))))
(. .)))
In the ICWSM 2009 Weblog Corpus:
The many different types of distros are one of the greatest strengths of Linux over proprietary solutions, where you basically have to take what you are given.”
(Parse)
(S1 (S (NP (NP (DT The) (JJ many) (JJ different) (NNS types))
(PP (IN of)
(NP (NNS distros))))
(VP (AUX are)
(NP (NP (CD one))
(PP (IN of)
(NP (NP (DT the) (JJS greatest) (NNS strengths))
(PP (IN of)
(NP (NNP Linux)))
(PP (IN over)
(NP (NP (JJ proprietary) (NNS solutions)) (, ,)
(SBAR (WHADVP (WRB where))
(S (NP (PRP you)) (ADVP (RB basically))
(VP (AUX have)
(S (VP (TO to)
(VP (VB take)
(SBAR (WHNP (WP what))
(S (NP (PRP you))
(VP (AUX are)
(VP (VBN given)))))
(. .) ('' ') ('' ')))
In the ICWSM 2009 Weblog Corpus:
But the advantages of having an open source, distributed solution which provides standardized identity, relationships, and privacy settings that developers can plug into, without having to worry about conflicts of interest (such as with proprietary solutions) or an unstable protocol (in the case of social network’ ‘glue’ ’). I would be very interested in hearing feedback for this, so if you have any questions, answer, concerns, or praise, please don’t hesitate to email me at michael. this email address 1.
(Parse)
(S1 (S (CC But)
(NP (NP (DT the) (NNS advantages))
(PP (IN of)
(S (VP (AUXG having)
(NP (DT an) (JJ open) (NN source)))
(, ,)
(VP (VBD distributed)
(NP (NP (NN solution))
(SBAR (WHNP (WDT which))
(S (VP (VBZ provides)
(NP (JJ standardized) (NN identity) (, ,) (NNS relationships) (, ,) (CC and) (NN privacy) (NNS settings))
(SBAR (IN that)
(S (NP (NNS developers))
(VP (MD can)
(VP (VB plug)
(PP (IN into)) (, ,)
(PP (IN without)
(S (VP (AUXG having)
(S (VP (TO to)
(VP (VB worry)
(PP (IN about)
(NP (NP (NNS conflicts))
(PP (IN of)
(NP (NP (NP (NN interest)) (PRN (-LRB- -LRB-)
(PP (JJ such) (IN as)
(PP (IN with)
(NP (JJ proprietary) (NNS solutions))))
(-RRB- -RRB-)))
(CC or)
(NP (NP (DT an) (JJ unstable) (NN protocol)) (PRN (-LRB- -LRB-) (FRAG (PP (IN in)
(NP (NP (DT the) (NN case))
(PP (IN of)
(NP (JJ social) (NN network) (POS ')))))
(: ')
(NP (NN glue) (POS ')) ('' ') (-RRB- -RRB-) (. .)
(S (NP (PRP I))
(VP (MD would)
(VP (AUX be)
(ADJP (RB very) (JJ interested)
(PP (IN in)
(S (VP (VBG hearing)
(NP (NN feedback))
(PP (IN for)
(NP (DT this)))
(, ,)
(S (RB so)
(SBAR (IN if)
(S (NP (PRP you))
(VP (AUX have)
(NP (NP (DT any) (NNS questions)) (, ,)
(NP (NN answer)) (, ,)
(NP (NNS concerns)) (, ,) (CC or)
(NP (NN praise)))
(, ,) (INTJ (UH please))
(VP (AUX do) (RB n't)
(VP (VB hesitate)
(S (VP (TO to)
(VP (NN email)
(NP (PRP me))
(PP (IN at)
(NP (NNP michael))))
(. .))
(NP (DT this) (NN email) (NN address)))
(CD 1)))
(. .)))
In the ICWSM 2009 Weblog Corpus:
Solution Garry produced a costing for a school Linux solution which came in at a 70 % saving compared to the equivalent proprietary solutions.
(Parse)
(S1 (S (NP (NN Solution) (NNP Garry))
(VP (VBD produced)
(NP (DT a) (VBG costing))
(PP (IN for)
(NP (NP (DT a) (NN school) (NNP Linux) (NN solution))
(SBAR (WHNP (WDT which))
(S (VP (VBD came) (PRT (RP in))
(PP (IN at)
(NP (DT a)
(ADJP (CD 70) (NN %)) (NN saving)))
(PP (VBN compared)
(PP (TO to)
(NP (DT the) (JJ equivalent) (JJ proprietary) (NNS solutions))))
(. .)))
In the British National Corpus:
We visited and discussed three outstanding implementations which demonstrated how the Japanese have solved these problems using a combination of open standards (mainly for communications) and de facto and proprietary solutions for applications and software portability.
(Parse)
(S1 (S (NP (PRP We))
(VP (VP (VBD visited)) (CC and)
(VP (VBD discussed)
(NP (NP (CD three) (JJ outstanding) (NNS implementations))
(SBAR (WHNP (WDT which))
(S (VP (VBD demonstrated)
(SBAR (WHADVP (WRB how))
(S (NP (DT the) (NNPS Japanese))
(VP (AUX have)
(VP (VBN solved)
(NP (DT these) (NNS problems))
(S (VP (VBG using)
(NP (NP (DT a) (NN combination))
(PP (IN of)
(NP (NP (NP (NP (NP (JJ open) (NNS standards)) (PRN (-LRB- -LRB-)
(PP (ADVP (RB mainly)) (IN for)
(NP (NNS communications)))
(-RRB- -RRB-)))
(CC and)
(NP (FW de) (FW facto)) (CC and)
(NP (JJ proprietary) (NNS solutions)))
(PP (IN for)
(NP (NNS applications))))
(CC and)
(NP (NN software) (NN portability)))))
(. .)))
In the ICWSM 2009 Weblog Corpus:
This next – generation PoC from Motorola brings a spirited call set – up time performance with other PoC and? buddy list? availability, proprietary solutions, an open ecosystem to support a wide variety of mobile devices from multiple manufacturers equipped with the PoC client and access to the Internet to enable? push – to – X? features and services to complement basic PoC.
(Parse)
(S1 (FRAG (NP (NP (NP (NP (DT This) (JJ next)) (: -)
(S (NP (NN generation) (NNP PoC) (IN from) (NNP Motorola))
(VP (VBZ brings)
(NP (DT a) (JJ spirited) (NN call) (NN set)) (: -)
(PP (IN up)
(NP (NP (NN time) (NN performance))
(PP (IN with)
(NP (NP (JJ other) (NNP PoC)) (CC and)
(NP (. ?) (NN buddy) (NN list)))))
(. ?)) (NN availability)) (, ,)
(NP (JJ proprietary) (NNS solutions)) (, ,)
(NP (DT an) (JJ open) (NN ecosystem)
(S (VP (TO to)
(VP (VB support)
(NP (NP (DT a) (JJ wide) (NN variety))
(PP (IN of)
(NP (NP (JJ mobile) (NNS devices))
(PP (IN from)
(NP (NP (JJ multiple) (NNS manufacturers))
(VP (VBN equipped)
(PP (IN with)
(NP (NP (DT the) (NNP PoC) (NN client) (CC and) (NN access))
(PP (TO to)
(NP (DT the) (NNP Internet)))))
(S (VP (TO to)
(VP (VB enable)))))
(. ?))
(VP (VB push)) (: -)
(S (X (TO to)) (: -) (LST (LS X) (. ?))
(NP (NNS features) (CC and) (NNS services))
(VP (TO to)
(VP (VB complement)
(NP (JJ basic) (NNP PoC)))))
(. .)))
In the ICWSM 2009 Weblog Corpus:
My second reaction was to laugh and realize this is why open source is so much better than proprietary solutions.
(Parse)
(S1 (S (NP (PRP$ My) (JJ second) (NN reaction))
(VP (AUX was)
(S (VP (TO to)
(VP (VB laugh) (CC and) (VB realize)
(SBAR (S (NP (DT this))
(VP (AUX is)
(SBAR (WHADVP (WRB why))
(S (NP (JJ open) (NN source))
(VP (AUX is)
(ADJP (ADJP (ADVP (RB so) (RB much)) (JJR better))
(PP (IN than)
(NP (JJ proprietary) (NNS solutions)))))
(. .)))
In Wikipedia:
In addition, its proprietary solutions are gaining market share with offshore sales, while its increased focus on solutions and service provision is strengthening revenue flows.
(Parse)
(S1 (S (PP (IN In)
(NP (NN addition)))
(, ,)
(NP (PRP$ its) (JJ proprietary) (NNS solutions))
(VP (AUX are)
(VP (VBG gaining)
(NP (NN market) (NN share))
(PP (IN with)
(NP (JJ offshore) (NNS sales)))
(, ,)
(SBAR (IN while)
(S (NP (NP (PRP$ its) (VBN increased) (NN focus))
(PP (IN on)
(NP (NNS solutions) (CC and) (NN service) (NN provision))))
(VP (AUX is)
(VP (VBG strengthening)
(NP (NN revenue) (NNS flows)))))
(. .)))
In the ICWSM 2009 Weblog Corpus:
Of course they were inexpensive but they were not reused across as many projects as the proprietary solutions, which meant that their total cost of ownership per project went up.
(Parse)
(S1 (S (PP (IN Of)
(NP (NN course)))
(S (NP (PRP they))
(VP (AUX were)
(ADJP (JJ inexpensive))))
(CC but)
(S (NP (PRP they))
(VP (AUX were) (RB not)
(VP (VBN reused)
(PP (IN across)
(NP (NP (ADJP (RB as) (JJ many)) (NNS projects))
(PP (IN as)
(NP (NP (DT the) (JJ proprietary) (NNS solutions)) (, ,)
(SBAR (WHNP (WDT which))
(S (VP (VBD meant)
(SBAR (IN that)
(S (NP (NP (PRP$ their) (JJ total) (NN cost))
(PP (IN of)
(NP (NN ownership)))
(PP (IN per)
(NP (NN project))))
(VP (VBD went) (PRT (RP up)))
(. .)))
In the ICWSM 2009 Weblog Corpus:
The Company’s proprietary solutions offer a fully automated, web – based platform upon which banks, credit unions, and other major financial instituions can rapidly identify, resolve and prevent costly ACH fraud and network violations.
(Parse)
(S1 (S (NP (NP (DT The) (NN Company) (POS 's)) (JJ proprietary) (NNS solutions))
(VP (VBP offer)
(NP (NP (DT a)
(ADJP (RB fully) (VBN automated)) (, ,) (NN web)) (: -)
(NP (NP (VBN based) (NN platform))
(SBAR (WHPP (IN upon) (WHNP (WDT which)))
(S (NP (NP (NNS banks)) (, ,)
(NP (NN credit) (NNS unions)) (, ,) (CC and)
(NP (JJ other) (JJ major) (JJ financial) (NNS instituions)))
(VP (MD can) (ADVP (RB rapidly))
(VP (VB identify) (, ,) (VB resolve) (CC and) (VB prevent)
(NP (JJ costly) (JJ ACH) (NN fraud) (CC and) (NN network) (NNS violations)))
(. .)))
In the ICWSM 2009 Weblog Corpus:
Its mediocrity has arguably hampered the evolution of the web and forced many site designers to depend on suboptimal proprietary solutions.
(Parse)
(S1 (S (NP (PRP$ Its) (NN mediocrity))
(VP (AUX has) (ADVP (RB arguably))
(VP (VP (VBN hampered)
(NP (NP (DT the) (NN evolution))
(PP (IN of)
(NP (DT the) (NN web)))))
(CC and)
(VP (VBN forced)
(S (NP (JJ many) (NN site) (NNS designers))
(VP (TO to)
(VP (VB depend)
(PP (IN on)
(NP (JJ suboptimal) (JJ proprietary) (NNS solutions)))
(. .)))
In the ICWSM 2009 Weblog Corpus:
They may want to support proprietary solutions.
(Parse)
(S1 (S (NP (PRP They))
(VP (MD may)
(VP (VB want)
(S (VP (TO to)
(VP (VB support)
(NP (JJ proprietary) (NNS solutions))))
(. .)))
In the ICWSM 2009 Weblog Corpus:
The many different types of distros are one of the greatest strengths of Linux over proprietary solutions, where you basically have to take what you are given.”
(Parse)
(S1 (S (NP (NP (DT The) (JJ many) (JJ different) (NNS types))
(PP (IN of)
(NP (NNS distros))))
(VP (AUX are)
(NP (NP (CD one))
(PP (IN of)
(NP (NP (DT the) (JJS greatest) (NNS strengths))
(PP (IN of)
(NP (NNP Linux)))
(PP (IN over)
(NP (NP (JJ proprietary) (NNS solutions)) (, ,)
(SBAR (WHADVP (WRB where))
(S (NP (PRP you)) (ADVP (RB basically))
(VP (AUX have)
(S (VP (TO to)
(VP (VB take)
(SBAR (WHNP (WP what))
(S (NP (PRP you))
(VP (AUX are)
(VP (VBN given)))))
(. .) ('' ') ('' ')))
In the ICWSM 2009 Weblog Corpus:
With BSD projects on the other hand, solution providers tend to go to market with proprietary solutions.
(Parse)
(S1 (S (SBAR (IN With)
(S (NP (NNP BSD) (NNS projects))
(PP (IN on)
(NP (DT the) (JJ other) (NN hand)))))
(, ,)
(NP (NN solution) (NNS providers))
(VP (VBP tend)
(S (VP (TO to)
(VP (VB go)
(PP (TO to)
(NP (NN market)))
(PP (IN with)
(NP (JJ proprietary) (NNS solutions))))
(. .)))
And 109 more sentences.