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 Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:40:39 GMT
I have sent the proposal, we'll see what they say...

-- Jens

On 17/01/14 15:02, Jens Grivolla wrote:
> 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:
> https://github.com/jgrivolla/coling2014-nlp-framework-workshop/blob/master/proposal.md
>
>
> I think the current version is pretty close to final. If there are any
> more suggestions hurry up, the deadline is approaching.
>
> -- Jens
>
>



Mime
View raw message