Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jose.aguera@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.166.178 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=RmfKR37YfeWqVPh7OQgt91P3yNofgzjdRG/lhl0UiMIE+vI1nDI1P7xJcYttcB6YUTvL40g4jMbYc7JedJ1ViqCSCoIdxirqHKCPYtMn7ZiFdxYvSmOiYh3KSFXTrlvokczKxB4wdpBVPo7r744rfExYzcQVBr7diEHtqMUmZKg=
Message-ID: <9ab5344d0708201010x278df005te191aae81f35bf9d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:10:13 +0200
From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Ram=F3n_P=E9rez_Ag=FCera?="
 <jose.aguera@fdi.ucm.es>
Sender: jose.aguera@gmail.com
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: TREC Collection, NIST and Lucene
In-Reply-To: <25ABEFB1-F16B-417B-A7AA-28EA23DD8CF1@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_117590_24033748.1187629813248"
References: <0D1F555A-E5FC-43B4-A4D3-825B97AAF5CE@apache.org>
	 <b23e01b50708100152ifa0223eicad62f4434868fe@mail.gmail.com>
	 <25ABEFB1-F16B-417B-A7AA-28EA23DD8CF1@apache.org>

------=_Part_117590_24033748.1187629813248
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

It is perfect :-) I think, maybe would be interesting that you send a CC to
LCD, because I think that they have some kind of rights on TREC collections=
.

http://trec.nist.gov/data/docs_eng.html

http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/

jose

On 8/20/07, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org> wrote:
>
> How does this sound:
>
> Dear ----,
>
> My name is Grant Ingersoll and I am committer on the Lucene Java
> search library (http://lucene.apache.org) at the Apache Software
> Foundation (ASF).  I am not, however, writing in any official
> capacity as a representative of the ASF.  Perhaps at a later date,
> this will change, but for now I just want to keep things informal.
>
> I am, however, interested in starting a discussion about how open
> source projects like Lucene could participate in future TREC
> evaluations, or at least gain access to TREC data resources.  While
> the people involved in Lucene feel we have built a top notch search
> system, one of the things the community as a whole lacks is the
> ability to do formal evaluations like TREC offers, and thus research
> and development of new algorithms is hindered.  Granted, individuals
> may perform TREC evaluations given they have purchased a license to
> the data, but the community as a whole does not have this ability.
>
> I am wondering if there is some way in which we can arrange for open
> source projects to obtain access to the TREC collections.  The
> biggest barrier for projects like Lucene, obviously, is the fee that
> needs to be paid.  Furthermore, there are undoubtedly distribution
> and copyright concerns.  Yet, a part of me feels that we can work
> something out through creative licensing or some other novel approach
> that protects the appropriate interests, furthers TREC's mission and
> supports the vibrant Open Source community around Lucene and other
> search engines.  Perhaps it would be possible to require that any
> participant who wants the TREC data must prove that they are
> appropriately affiliated with an official open source project, as
> defined by the Open Source Initiative (http://www.opensource.org).
> Many tool vendors have similar licenses that allow open source
> participants to use their tool while working on open source projects
> [1].  Perhaps we could provide a similar approach to the TREC data.
>
> I feel this would benefit TREC substantially, by providing an open,
> baseline system for all the world to see and I see that it fits very
> much with the motto of TREC  "...to encourage research in information
> retrieval from large text collections."   Naturally, it benefits
> Lucene by allowing Lucene to undertake more formal evaluation of
> relevance, etc.
>
> If you are interested in more background on this on the Lucene Java
> developers mailing list, please refer to
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/lucene/java-dev/52022?
> search_string=3DTREC;#52022
>
> I look forward to hearing back from you and I would be more than
> happy to answer any questions you have.
>
> Sincerely,
> Grant Ingersoll
>
> [1] JetBrains, Atlassian, Clover Test Coverage, etc.
>
> -------
>
> -Grant
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 10, 2007, at 4:52 AM, Tom White wrote:
>
> >> Furthermore, I think it would
> >> encourage Lucene users/developers to think about relevance as much as
> >> we think about speed.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > However I think it would be much better to start by making informal
> > approaches as you suggest - the open letter seems to me to be
> > appropriate only as a last resort.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>


--=20
Jos=E9 Ram=F3n P=E9rez Ag=FCera

Dept. de Ingenier=EDa del Software e Inteligencia Artificial
Despacho 411 tlf. 913947599
Facultad de Inform=E1tica
Universidad Complutense de Madrid

------=_Part_117590_24033748.1187629813248--