uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Klügl <peter.klu...@averbis.com>
Subject Re: "Standard" UIMA typesystem
Date Fri, 09 Sep 2016 13:49:26 GMT
I still don't get it.

You can reuse all components if you include some type system mapping
that knows the transformation. I combined some of our components with
DKPro Core, ClearTK, cTAKES and JCore components.

Our components won't work with the DKPro Core typesystem even if the
UIMA Framework would support more "laziness" or dynamic typing (for
different reasons, e.g., missing information).

I get the point with code generation though.



Am 09.09.2016 um 15:11 schrieb Joern Kottmann:
> A very good reason to use a framework like UIMA is that we can reuse
> components
> and don't have to build everything from scratch (if I have to do that I
> don't need UIMA these days).
> To be able to reuse a component it must work with multiple type systems or
> can easily be adapted
> to a custom type system.
> I am personally think the convenience the JCas brings is outweighed many
> times by all the complexity
> and disadvantages which come with it, e.g. code generation step, having
> extra special classes and mostly impossible
> to reuse the written code.
> Jörn
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Peter Klügl <peter.kluegl@averbis.com>
> wrote:
>> How should this be solved/improved? I do not see it.
>> You have either generic analysis engines with parameters for the types,
>> or the analysis engine knows the types and depends on it, regardless if
>> you use CAS or JCas.
>> Isn't that the thing with static typed feature structures? If you have
>> Java code that depends on a class hierarchy, you are stuck with that
>> hierarchy. (I hope this discussion won't go in a direction that
>> dynamically typed programming languages are  better)
>> I probably do not understand the motivation. Can you give me an example?
>> Best,
>> Peter
>> Am 09.09.2016 um 13:57 schrieb Joern Kottmann:
>>> I personally think that we depend way too much on particular type systems
>>> in UIMA. I really hope we can solve this to some degree in UIMA 3, if I
>>> today
>>> write code using JCAS I am totally stuck with the TS I use, reusing any
>> of
>>> that
>>> code with a different TS is impossible.
>>> The best you can do is using just the CAS, but then it is still difficult
>>> to support
>>> multiple type systems (e.g. complex configuration, various styles) and
>> allow
>>> reusing of the component in different systems.
>>> Jörn
>>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho <
>> rec@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 30.08.2016, at 16:39, Peter Klügl <peter.kluegl@averbis.com> wrote:
>>>>> If there no standard type system, then people have two options: create
>>>>> their own one or reuse an existing type system of a component
>>>>> repository, e.g., DKPro Core. As far as I know LiMoSINe [1] moved  from
>>>>> their own type system to DKPro Core (I waiting for some text to put on
>>>>> our external resources page - in case they read this).  I also was
>>>>> thinking about switching our NLP components to the DKPro Core type
>>>>> system, but there are several issues preventing that, first of all that
>>>>> I cannot build it :-/
>>>> /me Apache/UIMA hat off, DKPro Core hat on
>>>> Ok... I am finally addressing this annoying Windowsisim...
>>>>   https://github.com/dkpro/dkpro-core/issues/414
>>>> Btw. feel free to submit issues for DKPro Core type system improvements.
>>>> We actually do evolve the TS - trying to avoid breaking changes...
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -- Richard

View raw message