Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of ted.dunning@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.210.169 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5101B797.5070806@apache.org>
References: <F085F637EA9843429DA7A267BBB709A01EA6A61D@IMCMBX04.MITRE.ORG>
 <CAENpzYU6GpTcWh4rDZ9_YCuOZcX9f6SOCcyNepSxvNti45j8Qw@mail.gmail.com>
 <996FC801C05DF64A84246A106FACACD00711AD@MSGPEXCHA08A.mfad.mfroot.org>
 <996FC801C05DF64A84246A106FACACD007125D@MSGPEXCHA08A.mfad.mfroot.org>
 <CAENpzYWHN0W4C_N6QUqAx7UrzWU732Zdi2ceE2U1TwhyVj+_fA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALhtWkesaDBg15gC2WeiOrhpkY3XcagHreziTRkGVJNydCfSqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAENpzYVAy5pp7_JEUcOqN+MoSKhoEu8Ueq8mmeyBiK7SXzACYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALhtWke-MM=j_fu6oeX56UfDzvy65i1cxa6pqY9TY2FtUg3dxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5101B797.5070806@apache.org>
From: Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:50:22 +0900
Message-ID: 
 <CAJwFCa396J3_NN6AGv+3h2EuSCmB2D37hSp2VM8-yZ91KuUBrw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache cTAKES 3.0.0-incubating RC5 release
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9340bcdbbf1ba04d4125139

--14dae9340bcdbbf1ba04d4125139
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Branko =C4=8Cibej <brane@apache.org> wrote=
:

> On 21.01.2013 21:08, Benson Margulies wrote:
> ...>>
> >> I am referring to this discussion  http://s.apache.org/MUZ
> > Well, that clear enough, even if it is a typical example of how our
> > founders yell at us but we have no mechanism to channel those yells
> > into concise, unambiguous, documentation.
>
> Per haps off-topic ... but I fail to see how "source release" is
> ambiguous or not concise.
>
> Unless the Java world has a different definition of "source code" than
> us stuck-in-the-mud plodders, and it's only considered binary once it's
> been JIT-compiled. :)
>


It isn't necessarily ambiguous when applied to code, but there is a
different case when applied to models  or parameter settings.

For instance, commons match has polynomial coefficients embedded in code
that approximate certain functions.  These are the results of computations
done using other systems and the source code and the data used in those
other computations are not included in the released code, only the
parameter values are.

This same sort of thing applies here except that the model in question has
a much larger set of values and is being packaged in a binary, inspectable
format.  Would your opinion change if the model were expressed in a textual
model?  Would it matter that the textual model is too large and obtuse to
usefully inspect?

What about a hypothetical case where the model is derived from the
explosion of a nuclear bomb?  Would the release of the numbers require the
inclusion of a suitable bomb design so that everybody could replicate the
derivation?

--14dae9340bcdbbf1ba04d4125139--