Re: DocumentAnnotation and type-merging

2007-01-09 Thread Michael Baessler
Adam Lally wrote: On 12/22/06, Adam Lally [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/22/06, Marshall Schor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Re: What to do about Document Annotation for 2.1. a) Do the work to make it easy to get singletons (or whatever we're calling this feature) out of the CAS b) Change

Re: DocumentAnnotation and type-merging

2006-12-22 Thread Adam Lally
On 12/22/06, Marshall Schor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Re: What to do about Document Annotation for 2.1. a) Do the work to make it easy to get singletons (or whatever we're calling this feature) out of the CAS b) Change JCasGen to not generate DocumentAnnotation if the merged version = the base

Re: DocumentAnnotation and type-merging

2006-12-19 Thread Marshall Schor
Adam Lally wrote: On 12/18/06, Marshall Schor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think what we have is annotator A might have a version of types for it (T/A) and annotator B might have a version of types for it (T/B). The assembly of A and B has a process whereby T/A and T/B are merged, and a new T/AB

Re: DocumentAnnotation and type-merging

2006-12-19 Thread Adam Lally
On 12/19/06, Marshall Schor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about: We explicitly document that if feature extension is used with JCas, you need to (a) package type systems and the JCas generated classes separately from other packagings, and (b) be willing to re-run JCasGen when your type package

Re: DocumentAnnotation and type-merging

2006-12-18 Thread Adam Lally
On 12/18/06, Marshall Schor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me that developers choose to put data into a CAS because they envision sharing that data with other (independently-developed) components. If they're planning to do that, then the definitions of the types they're sharing in some

Re: DocumentAnnotation and type-merging

2006-12-18 Thread Marshall Schor
Adam Lally wrote: On 12/18/06, Marshall Schor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me that developers choose to put data into a CAS because they envision sharing that data with other (independently-developed) components. If they're planning to do that, then the definitions of the types they're

Re: DocumentAnnotation and type-merging

2006-12-15 Thread Marshall Schor
Adam Lally wrote: Yes, this topic again... While working on a utility to migrate code from IBM UIMA to Apache UIMA, I encountered the case where the user's project has a definition of com.ibm.uima.jcas.tcas.DocumentAnnotation. That's because JCasGen creates this, to account for cases where the