uima-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jens Grivolla <j+...@grivolla.net>
Subject Re: next UIMA workshop?
Date Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:02:51 GMT
On 15/01/14 20:51, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> On 15.01.2014, at 15:10, Jens Grivolla <j+asf@grivolla.net> wrote:
>> The CFP itself must still be rewritten to be less UIMA-centric, other than that this
is starting to look quite good.

GATE developer Mark A. Greenwood did the rewrite and sent me a pull 
request on Github.

> For example, the topic "experience reports combining UIMA-based components from different
sources, as well as solutions to interoperability issues" could be reworded as:
> 1) experience reports combining language analysis components from different sources,
as well as solutions to interoperability issues
> 2) experience reports combining different frameworks (e.g. GATE/UIMA/WebLicht/etc.),
as well as solutions to interoperability issues

I put both in there as separate points.

> I think both aspects would be interesting. I'm a little afraid that 1) might end up iterating
the existing of frameworks like UIMA, while 2) would end up referring over web-services or
semantic web stuff for interoperability - which may not be very interesting. I'd be more interested
in issues and solutions exist beyond this, e.g. with regards to the interchangability of components.
What problems exist when e.g. one parser component in a workflow is replaced with a different
one? How can these be solved? (Cf. Noh and Padó, 2013 [1]).

Agree.  Subtle semantic differences between alternative components can 
be more challenging than the technical integration.  I'm not sure how to 
put that in the CFP without it getting very verbose, though.

> I think one more topic could be added:
> - "combining annotation type systems in processing frameworks (GATE, UIMA, etc.) with
standardization efforts, such as done in the ISO TC37/SC4 or TEI contexts."

Done. Thanks for your input.

As always, the current state of the proposal can be seen on Github: 

I think the current version is pretty close to final. If there are any 
more suggestions hurry up, the deadline is approaching.

-- Jens

View raw message