Thanks Marshall, I think I have misunderstood the V3 change. I do have JCas classes corresponding to UIMA Types. For example a document class that includes various metadata I am interested in and write to a database. I had the impression that V3 might remove the requirement to have a type system, thereby allowing arbitrary java objects to be added to the CAS. By arbitrary I mean (for example) a java POJO not defined in the type system.
The use case I was thinking of was using directly hibernate annotated POJOs in the CAS instead of mapping between them and my type system defined objects. -John ________________________________________ From: Marshall Schor [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 10:03 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [External Sender] Re: shall we start a UIMA blog? I'll try and post some info about this on some section of the website. The type system for UIMA has an "optional" connection to Java objects. >From your query, should I assume you've created JCas classes corresponding to (some of) the UIMA types? In v2, each UIMA type that had equivalent JCas class, had two classes, named following a naming convention where the UIMA type was the JCas class name, for one, and the other was the same with a suffix of "_Type". In v3, the 2nd class (with the name ending in _Type) is no longer used or needed. The details of the JCas implementation changes between v2 and v3, but the user-facing APIs are the same. Can you say more about what kind of best practices you're looking for? Do you have a simple example to share? That will help guide the discussion. -Marshall On 4/24/2018 9:46 AM, Osborne, John D wrote: > I'd like to see a blog or any other information about v3 - specifically best > practices around navigating the relationship/migration between the (old?) > type system and java objects, the latter of which may already have an ORM to > a relational database. > > ________________________________________ > From: Marshall Schor [[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 7:35 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [External Sender] Re: shall we start a UIMA blog? > > right you are.... I've had that exact experience. > > And I like your idea about tweeting. > > Thanks. -Marshall > > > On 4/21/2018 3:50 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote: >> IMHO blogs tend to be started, then a small number of posts are published, >> and >> then they are abandoned. But if you feel you really wish to maintain a >> periodical, >> no objections. >> >> You could also tweet from time to time and point people to specific new parts >> of the UIMA documentation or to the migration document? You could write a >> new beginners tutorial as part of the UIMA documentation and tweet about >> that. >> >> Cheers, >> >> -- Richard >> >>> On 19.04.2018, at 18:56, Marshall Schor <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> According to >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__apache.org_dev_project-2Dblogs&d=DwIDaQ&c=o3PTkfaYAd6-No7SurnLtwPssd47t-De9Do23lQNz7U&r=SEpLmXf_P21h_X0qEQSssKMDDEOsGxxYoSxofi_ZbFo&m=BUA5eDvlAci3g4ufVMEBJJ4RUzBU5ET_wX4O6OwEFkY&s=n8eXCLgduPqLCKOYqWa3-Uefe_UJfubMnJTD4eJixy8&e= >>> projects can have a blog, just >>> by asking. >>> >>> I'm wanting to occasionally blog about uima version 3 to increase awareness. >>> >>> We could use it for other topics too... >>> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> -Marshall >
