stanbol-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Olivier Grisel <>
Subject Re: Stanbol Enhancement Structure (discussion)
Date Mon, 07 Mar 2011 13:22:17 GMT
2011/3/7 Rupert Westenthaler <>:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Olivier Grisel
> <> wrote:
>> 2011/3/7 Rupert Westenthaler <>:
>>> or (3) force implementors of EnhancementEngines to add both
>>> sb:Annotation and sb:EntityAnnotation as rdf:type.
>>> All this three Solutions do not seam very promising because
>>>  - users will not want to enable reasoning
>>>  - UNIONS do make queries very complex, and what happens if we add an
>>> other Annotation type?
>>>  - adding multiple rdf:types would be nice solution for the client
>>> side, but has the danger that some functionality will break if an
>>> EnhancementEngines does not add the additional type.
>> I agree we should not impose UNIONS of rdfs reasoning to the client
>> side. I had solution 3 in mind: every time you add an annotation that
>> is about the identification of an Entity in the text (as opposed to
>> the time of annotations such as finding the topic of the content item,
>> the language, a keyphrase, ...), the enhancement engine should add
>> both rdf:type sb:Annotation and rdf:type sb:EntityAnnotation. If it
>> does not it's considered a bug and has to be fixed.
> If we aim in that direction, we should create a test framework as part
> of the Stanbol Enhancer. EnhancementEngines would than need to pass
> all the tests defined by this Framework.
> I think it should not be hard to write simple unit tests that check if
> Enhancements created by EnhancementEngines are in line with the
> Enhancement Structure.

+1 We will also update the Java helpers to generate annotations that
are consistent with the model.

Olivier -

View raw message