The message was initially delivered to only content-providers - a particular subgroup of cTakes users of which I'm a part, but the language is quite unclear. If I read it one way, it looks like consumers of a content provider instance of cTakes don't need to individually authenticate anymore. But I could be wrong. The other bit which I find disturbing is that nothing on their UTS website has been updated. It still has the old API instructions, no mention of any changes or a sandbox. Even their rss feed has nothing new.
I've written a mechanism to act as an authentication relay which we need in our facility, and depending on the outcome in the next weeks/months, I may share it, once I've converted it to whatever the new authentication mechanism will requite - and if people are interested. It allows the current cTakes release to delegate the authentication to the relay which then takes care of adapting to the new UMLS requirements. Peter On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 7:21 PM Akram <as...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > Does that mean cTAKES is not going to work? > My PhD research depends on it. > Is there anyway we can get cTAKES working without the need to authenticate > UMLS? > as Gres suggested, can we just download NLM model and use cTAKES offline > compeletely? > Thanks > > > On Friday, 18 September 2020, 10:46:12 am GMT-7, Greg Silverman > <g...@umn.edu.invalid> wrote: > > I never received the email you mentioned. > > I assume this will affect the API call to NLM for UMLS validation? If it > does, why not take the NLM's model for UMLS and only require UMLS > credentials at the time of download? > > Greg-- > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 12:33 PM Peter Abramowitsch < > pabramowit...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi All > > > > Probably all of you have received an email from Patrick McLaughlin at the > > NLM regarding upcoming changes to the UMLS authentication they are going > to > > support and to retire. This will have implications for all cTakes users > > in different ways depending on how cTakes is implemented in your > > community. To me, there were some ambiguities in his email regarding > > usage situations as a registered content provider that needed to be > spelled > > out. > > > > I was wondering if any of you have had further conversations with him > which > > might clarify whether, for instance, users within a registered content > > provider installation would still need to be individually authenticated. > > Or on any other authentication scenario. > > > > I'm trying to contact him or his team at the moment to ask about our > > particular architecture. > > > > Regards, Peter > > > > > -- > Greg M. Silverman > Senior Systems Developer > NLP/IE <https://healthinformatics.umn.edu/research/nlpie-group> > Department of Surgery > University of Minnesota > g...@umn.edu >
