This has been done in trunk in r1463641. Feel free to give it a whirl...
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Karthik > Sarma > Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 7:54 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Where should cTAKES models live? > > I like b as well > > > > > > -- > Karthik Sarma > UCLA Medical Scientist Training Program Class of 20?? > Member, UCLA Medical Imaging & Informatics Lab Member, CA Delegation > to the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association > [email protected] > gchat: [email protected] > linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/ksarma > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Masanz, James J. > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > I agree with about (b) > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto: > > dev- > > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of > > > Steven Bethard > > > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 8:27 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Where should cTAKES models live? > > > > > > On Mar 29, 2013, at 7:09 AM, "Chen, Pei" > > > <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > It looks like the general consensus is for # 2) Leave them in the > > > > ASF > > > repo, but as separate modules/project(s). > > > > Which means we (the community) will take on the risk (security, > > > > ip, > > > license, etc.) and responsibility for the models that we commit. > > > > I'll take a stab at this today... > > > > Does anyone think it's worthwhile to (a) lump them all together > > > > and > > call > > > it a ctakes-resources project/model for pragmatic reasons? > > > Otherwise > > (b), > > > we'll have a resource module for each such as ctakes-core-res, > > ctakes-pos- > > > tagger-res, etc.? > > > > > > I prefer (b). I know that means a lot more projects, but if I only > > > want to, say, run the ctakes-temporal models, it would be a pity if > > > I had to pull in the whole UMLS distribution at the same time. > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > --Pei > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > > >> Karthik Sarma > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:35 PM > > > >> To: cTAKES Developer List > > > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Where should cTAKES models live? > > > >> > > > >> I concur. +1 for option 2 -- I do not really see any advantages > > > >> that option > > > >> 3 could have over option 2, as the difference should be largely > > > >> transparent to users (and even developers) > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Karthik Sarma > > > >> UCLA Medical Scientist Training Program Class of 20?? > > > >> Member, UCLA Medical Imaging & Informatics Lab Member, CA > > > >> Delegation to the House of Delegates of the American Medical > > > >> Association [email protected] > > > >> gchat: [email protected] > > > >> linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/ksarma > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Masanz, James J. > > > >> <[email protected]>wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> I also am +1 for option 2. > > > >>> > > > >>> #3 is my least favorite, because of the download time for some > > > >>> of the models, both for cases like Steve mentioned but also for > > > >>> cases of wanting to check out a fresh copy of the code and not > > > >>> wanting to wait to check out the models again > > > >>> > > > >>> -- James > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>> From: > > > >>>> ctakes-dev-return-1378- > > > >> [email protected] > > > >>>> [mailto:ctakes-dev-return-1378-Masanz.James= > > > >>> [email protected]] > > > >>>> On Behalf Of Steven Bethard > > > >>>> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 1:06 PM > > > >>>> To: [email protected] > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Where should cTAKES models live? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Mar 15, 2013, at 4:39 PM, "Chen, Pei" > > > >>>> <[email protected] > > > >>>> > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>>> So the question is: What should we do with the model files? > > > >>>>> Some > > > >>>> options include: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 1) Leave them in SourceForge/Maven Central. Maven can > > download > > > >>> and > > > >>>> include them in the convenience binaries in the > > > >>>> ctakes-distribution project. Something we did quickly for 3.0, > > > >>>> but needs to be improved if we go with this approach. For > > > >>>> example: [2] > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 2) Leave them in the ASF repo, but separate modules/projects. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 3) Keep them in the same respective ASF modules under > > > >>>> /src/main/resources > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I think it's nice to keep these fairly large (~1GB) and static > > > >>>>> resource > > > >>>> files separate from the source code (Either option 1 or 2). > > > >>>> Also, option > > > >>>> 1 will require a little more work by the committers/release > > > >>>> managers but will definitely avoid any licensing issues/concerns. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I'd definitely vote for (2). That makes releases much easier > > > >>>> than if you have to coordinate between the ASF and Sourceforge > > > >>>> repositories, but also allows people to depend on the code in a > > > >>>> module without also pulling in all the models as well. (This > > > >>>> would make a lot of sense even now, for example, in > > > >>>> ctakes-temporal which depends on ctakes-relation-extractor only > > > >>>> for the relation extraction framework and not for the > > > >>>> location_of > > > >>> and > > > >>>> degree_of models.) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Steve > > > >>> > > > >
