On Sep 27, 2006, at 1:17 AM, Ian Holsman wrote:
issues addressed in this release:
1. updated proposal included
2. The first paragraph explains it to a layperson
3. OASIS issue addressed
Thanks Ian.
+1,
Leo
[ ] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this pr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[X] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
(also binding. and late.)
- --
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-BEGIN PGP
[X] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
(binding)
- Sam Ruby
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 9/27/06, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. The first paragraph explains it to a layperson
thanks - much better.
but i don't see at all in terms of explaining it to laypersons. a
project that cannot explain itself clearly in a paragraph doesn't
understand itself.
[X] +1 Accept U
On 9/26/06, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[X] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this proposal for the following reason:
As before. -- justin
[X] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this proposal for the following reason:
+1 (non binding)
We've made the move to the framework UIMA 6 months ago to be the middleware of
our new product version. This decision has been made after reading the very
comple
[X] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this proposal for the following reason:
-ehn
Ian Holsman wrote:
issues addressed in this release:
1. updated proposal included
2. The first paragraph explains it to a layperson
3. OASIS issue addressed
[ ] +1 Accept
+1
On Sep 26, 2006, at 7:17 PM, Ian Holsman wrote:
issues addressed in this release:
1. updated proposal included
2. The first paragraph explains it to a layperson
3. OASIS issue addressed
[ ] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this proposal for the fol
On 9/26/06, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[X] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this proposal for the following reason:
+1 (non binding)
-Yonik
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
[X] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this proposal for the following reason:
Otis
- Original Message
From: Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:17:37 PM
Subject: [Vote] accept UIMA as a
On Sep 19, 2006, at 5:32 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 9/19/06, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
you're right. Others have noted that our opening paragraphs are not
very clear. We did however follow up with more explanation that
satisfied others on the list. Are you saying that these
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
My only condition for acceptance is that someone explain UIMA to me
over beer at AC. =)
Good luck! -- justin
I'm planning on attending AC (Wednesday thru Friday), and would love to
explain UIMA to all that are interested!
-- Marshall Schor
---
On 9/18/06, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
as per Garrett's suggestion.
> [X] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Reject this proposal for the following reason:
My only condition for acceptance is that someone explain UIMA to me
over beer at AC. =)
Goo
Greetings,
I understand from the message traffic that there are some concerns about
the current state of the UIMA proposal, but I'd like to offer my support
(and my hope that the issues with the proposal are resolved).
Carnegie Mellon has been building and deploying text analysis programs
us
On 9/19/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:07:33PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> Of course, the fact that you had to be explicitly asked to explain
> what the project does in the mailing list discussion doesn't bode well
> in and of itself. My objection
On 9/20/06, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only mistake here is the initial proposal might have assumed that
people had a understanding of the topic area.
this is why in the draft guide
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html splitting the initial
proposal into several s
- Original Message
From: Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 7:09:34 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] accept UIMA as a podling
On 9/19/06, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally I look at some of the enterpris
On 9/19/06, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Personally I look at some of the enterprise java proposals and have
no clue about them either
as i don't track the SOA/WS specs that closely.
Yes, and that's a BAD thing. If this proposal was for some
j2ee/WS/SOA related monstrosity with 98 d
On 20/09/2006, at 6:52 AM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 9/19/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:07:33PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> Of course, the fact that you had to be explicitly asked to explain
> what the project does in the mailing list discussion
On 9/19/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:07:33PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> Of course, the fact that you had to be explicitly asked to explain
> what the project does in the mailing list discussion doesn't bode well
> in and of itself. My objection
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:07:33PM -0400, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> Of course, the fact that you had to be explicitly asked to explain
> what the project does in the mailing list discussion doesn't bode well
> in and of itself. My objection isn't just "your proposal is unclear",
> it's also in part
Marshall Schor wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > The notification clause mentioned in the FAQ has been considered an
issue
> > for the ASF, as it passes that obligation to downstream consumers of our
> > code. Does that apply to UIMA?
> I looked in the FAQ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/ipr_
On 9/19/06, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Garrett Rooney wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 based on my new policy of rejecting
> any potential podling that can't explain what it is that they do
> within the first paragraph of the proposal. I'm a fairly intelligent
> person, but
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The notification clause mentioned in the FAQ has been considered an issue
for the ASF, as it passes that obligation to downstream consumers of our
code. Does that apply to UIMA?
I looked in the FAQ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/ipr_faq.php but
didn't see the "no
On 9/19/06, Thilo Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
you're right. Others have noted that our opening paragraphs are not
very clear. We did however follow up with more explanation that
satisfied others on the list. Are you saying that these further
explanations are still not clear, or that those
Garrett Rooney wrote:
I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 based on my new policy of rejecting
any potential podling that can't explain what it is that they do
within the first paragraph of the proposal. I'm a fairly intelligent
person, but honestly I have no clue what "an architecture and software
David Ferrucci wrote:
> we specified that [UIMA] be set up under the "RF on Limited Terms"
> mode of the OASIS IP Policy.
RF on Limited Terms specifies the exact Royalty Free licensing
terms and conditions that may be included in a patent holder's
license and that must be granted upon reque
Hi,
When we requested OASIS to set up a Technical Committee chartered to
develop a platform-independent specification for text and multi-modal
analysis, we specified that it be set up under the "RF on Limited Terms"
mode of the OASIS IP Policy. "RF" means Royalty Free, and the Limited
Terms
On 9/19/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The proposal can be found in the Incubator wiki here:
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/UIMA
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You want to request a vote, you include
the proposal in the e-mail. OK, I'll admit, I've seen the follow up e-
> The proposal can be found in the Incubator wiki here:
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/UIMA
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You want to request a vote, you include
the proposal in the e-mail. OK, I'll admit, I've seen the follow up e-mail
where you did post the proposal in response to Garre
t is that UIMA really
does in emails, but yes, making sure it's answered in the proposal
(I can't connect to wiki.apache.org at the moment to see the final
proposal for myself).
Otis
- Original Message
From: Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: general@incubator.
From: Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 5:11:13 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] accept UIMA as a podling
On 9/18/06, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ ] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
> [ ] 0 Don
On 9/18/06, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ ] +1 Accept UIMA as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[X] -1 Reject this proposal for the following reason:
I'm sorry, but I have to vote -1 based on my new policy of rejecting
any potential podling that can't explain what it is that th
This one works much better http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/UimaProposal
Hervé
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garrett Rooney
Sent: lundi 18 septembre 2006 22:48
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] accept UIMA as a
On 9/18/06, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
There has been some discussion around the UIMA proposal,
we feel that all the issues forwarded have been addressed, and we
would now like to officially propose UIMA to the Incubator for
consideration.
The proposal can be found in the Incub
35 matches
Mail list logo
