+1
Backwards compatibility is something we take seriously, and when a
change is needed,
we should provide transition time for our existing users.
Results specifications seem to be good concept - and this approach
gives us time to thoughtfully evolve it.
-Marshall
Thilo Goetz wrote:
As email
As email discussion on this subject was dragging on, and the
time for our planned next release is fast approaching, the UIMA
committers had a phone call to resolve this issue. Present were:
Adam, Eddie, Marshall, Thilo (Michael is currently unavailable,
back next week)
We had a lively discussion
On 6/18/07, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Adam Lally wrote:
> It seems like there is a tradeoff here between supporting users
> migrating from 1.4 to 2.2, versus supporting users migrating from 2.0
> or 2.1 to 2.2, is there not?
But for 2.1 users it's easy, they just need to rename the
Adam Lally wrote:
> On 6/18/07, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If we need to go this route, we'd rather implement a custom flow. That
>> seems the lesser evil.
>>
>
> Can you do what you need using a flow controller? The core of this
> problem is the that the FlowController interface
On 6/18/07, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If we need to go this route, we'd rather implement a custom flow. That
seems the lesser evil.
Can you do what you need using a flow controller? The core of this
problem is the that the FlowController interface does not allow the
custom flow
Adam Lally wrote:
> To update this thread: We've determined that the particular use case
> we know about that was relying on this feature of the
> capabilityLanguageFlow could be addressed by changing the annotator
> code if necessary, to check for existence of Tokens in the CAS before
> creating
To update this thread: We've determined that the particular use case
we know about that was relying on this feature of the
capabilityLanguageFlow could be addressed by changing the annotator
code if necessary, to check for existence of Tokens in the CAS before
creating additional Tokens. Of cour
On 6/12/07, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
no, this is not an option.
So you vote against the option... that is fine, it doesn't mean it
isn't an option *to consider*.
We have users who use the capabilityLanguageFlow
in 1.4 in ways that will break in 2.x. I don't want them to migrate
Hi Adam,
Adam Lally wrote:
> On 6/11/07, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> OK, for the next release I think we have to possibilities...
>>
>> 1) we implement the SimpleStepWithResultSpec function to fix the
>> capabilityLanguageFlow as it was in UIMA 1.4. This allows UIMA 1.4 users
>>
On 6/11/07, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK, for the next release I think we have to possibilities...
1) we implement the SimpleStepWithResultSpec function to fix the
capabilityLanguageFlow as it was in UIMA 1.4. This allows UIMA 1.4 users
that use the capabilityLanguageFlow to mi
Adam Lally wrote:
On 6/8/07, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
the old code is still in place that tries to set the result spec for the
next node, but I think it has no effect.
It is in CapabilityLanguageFlowObject.next()
// check if current engine should be called
if
On 6/8/07, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
the old code is still in place that tries to set the result spec for the
next node, but I think it has no effect.
It is in CapabilityLanguageFlowObject.next()
// check if current engine should be called
if (shouldEngineBeCal
Adam Lally wrote:
On 6/6/07, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here is a short example.
Annotator 1 can do Tokens and Lemmas
Annotator 2 can do Tokens and Sentences
Application is interested in Tokens, Lemmas and Sentences.
I guess the default result spec for Annotator 1 is Tokens and
On 6/6/07, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here is a short example.
Annotator 1 can do Tokens and Lemmas
Annotator 2 can do Tokens and Sentences
Application is interested in Tokens, Lemmas and Sentences.
I guess the default result spec for Annotator 1 is Tokens and Lemmas.
The defaul
Adam Lally wrote:
On 4/18/07, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK, but can the FlowController manipulate the ResultSpec for an
annotator before it is
called? Or can the FlowController just decide the flow of the engines
(if they are called, which order ...)
If the FlowController does
On 4/18/07, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK, but can the FlowController manipulate the ResultSpec for an
annotator before it is
called? Or can the FlowController just decide the flow of the engines
(if they are called, which order ...)
If the FlowController does not manipulate the
Adam Lally wrote:
This changed in 2.0 with the introduction of the flow controller. The
ResultSpec no longer has any dependence on the flow. The framework
assumes the most general case of the custom flow controller.
The effect is that an annotator's ResultSpec will include all of the
input typ
On 4/17/07, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry, I currently don't understand what is going on here...
you mentioned above how the default Result Spec is computed. But I think
the Result Spec depends on the used
aggregate flow, isn't it? So what flow is used in the sample above, th
Adam Lally wrote:
P.S. Here are the specific rules for the Result Spec (this is
documented in the manual more or less in this form):
The default Result Spec is automatically computed from the
capabilities in the component descriptors, as follows:
1) The outermost aggregate's result spec is set
Adam Lally wrote:
I'm interested in getting others' opinions on this. I was recently
helping some users who were having a problem where a 3rd-party
annotator they were using wasn't producing annotations that they
expected it to. The annotator was embedded in a nested aggregate. It
took me a co
I'm interested in getting others' opinions on this. I was recently
helping some users who were having a problem where a 3rd-party
annotator they were using wasn't producing annotations that they
expected it to. The annotator was embedded in a nested aggregate. It
took me a couple of hours to fi
21 matches
Mail list logo
