At the time that Steven, Philip and I had our conversation, I committed to do the work and to come up with a proposal. For quite some time I had no time to work on this, but actually, an analysis the design of several UIMA type systems has meanwhile been done. As this is part of ongoing research, I cannot share this with the general public right now, but will be more than happy to do it as soon as I can. I'll also still be happy to take the lead (or at least one of the leads) on the proposal. As for a time frame, I think getting an initial suggestion ready around Q1 2014 is realistic.
In my opinion, ClearTK, cTAKES and DKPro Core all bring in distinct design choices that should be combinable with each other for an extensible base type system. I'd personally not suggest to take any of the type systems as is (without modifications) as the basis for a proposal. -- Richard On 01.10.2013, at 03:17, Steven Bethard <steven.beth...@gmail.com> wrote: > We (ClearTK) talked with Richard (DKPro) about doing this for ClearTK > and DKPro. Basically, both groups were all for it, but the main issue > was time. Basically you need to: > > (1) Have someone inspect the various type systems closely and make a proposal > (2) Agree on the proposal. > (3) Spend the time to re-write all the code to use the new type system. > > Step (3) is especially time consuming, but in fact, we never managed > to get the free time for step (1). > > That all said, ClearTK would love to share a common type system with > other projects. > > Steve > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Pei Chen <chen...@apache.org> wrote: >> Richard, I, and few others had an interesting bar conversation... >> In the spirit of interoperability, What if we had a baseline common type >> system that could be reused across UIMA compatible NLP systems? >> Imagine for a moment that OpenNLP, ClearTK, ClearNLP, DKPro, cTAKES etc. if >> we could come up with a common baseline type system could be be reused? It >> may sound like a dream, but it could be doable-- if we could factor out and >> find the common ground? Perhaps we could start with the syntactical >> features... and then extend it for more specific domain use cases? >> >> --Pei
