On 15.01.2014, at 15:10, Jens Grivolla <j+...@grivolla.net> wrote: > Just a quick update: the proposal is progressing nicely, with very positive > response from the GATE people. In fact, it will be co-organised by a GATE > core team member and several core developers are on the PC.
Great! > The CFP itself must still be rewritten to be less UIMA-centric, other than > that this is starting to look quite good. > > Any input is welcome, so if you have any suggestions hurry up... The current covered topics look very interesting. Now, I believe, it depends on how they are reworded to accommodate other processing frameworks, such as GATE. 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 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]). 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." Cheers, -- Richard [1] http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1038/paper_3.pdf
