Do we need to separate cTAKES documentation versions from one another? For example, if we tried to build the doc, should the files all be contained within one top level folder or is it OK to simply use file names as distinction and let them all be in the same folder. I would guess the former but would like some guidance.
Thanks Troy -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chen, Pei Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 4:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: First documentation pages > * Move Getting Started under GENERAL, so it appeals to everyone who > first sees the site. It will define our users and point them in the > right direction. I think the Getting Started section should be extremely simple- something like: (I think the component diagram/dependency tree should be in the manual or reference appendix rather than "quick" start guide). Requirements ----------- Java 1.6+ is required to run cTAKES Download ----------- [Link to the latest download section to apache-ctakes-{release}.tar.gz/.zip] and unzip file. Running the default pipeline in the UIMA CAS Visual Debugger or Collection Processing Engine ----------- Run bin/runctakesCVD/CPE.sh.bat Load AE (analysis engine) Select desc/ctakes-clinical-pipeline/desc/analysis_engine/AggregatePlaintextProcessor Enter note(s) and run analysis engine. Notes ----------- If you plan to use the UMLS Resources, on can add the umls user info: Export/set ctakes.umlsuser=[username] Export/set ctakes.umlspw=[password] or add the system properties to the java args -Dctakes.umlsuser=[username] -Dctakes.umlspw=[password] > Now a question as well. When we went from cTAKES 1.0 to 1.2 we settled > on calling the parts of cTAKES one can take advantage of "component" > as evidenced by the diagram created and the documentation section > headers, etc. In the past month I've seen more people refer to the > cTAKES parts as "module". I'm not stuck on a name. Perhaps module is > more of a maven term and we didn't have that before. I have in mind > what I like, but as I said it does not really matter to me, so long as > we are consistent. If we change away from "component" the doc we pull > over from previous releases will need to be modified, also not too big a > deal. What do you think? If we had references to 'component' in the previous documentation, my vote would be to also keep it as component; introducing a new term would probably just add more confusion to users. --Pei
