stanbol-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rupert Westenthaler <rupert.westentha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Stanbol Enhancement Structure (discussion)
Date Mon, 07 Mar 2011 13:17:43 GMT
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Olivier Grisel
<olivier.grisel@ensta.org> wrote:
> 2011/3/7 Rupert Westenthaler <rwesten@apache.org>:
>>
>> 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.

best
Rupert


-- 
| Rupert Westenthaler             rupert.westenthaler@gmail.com
| Bodenlehenstraße 11                             ++43-699-11108907
| A-5500 Bischofshofen

Mime
View raw message