No objections from me. Unless someone needs the relation extraction component without the a.o.ctakes new namespaces.
-Pei On Nov 20, 2012, at 11:42 AM, "Bleeker, Troy C." <[email protected]> wrote: > That will make a big impact on documentation. Do we need to vote on skipping > 2.6 entirely. I'd rather not assume that this was enough to cancel the > release and find out later that we needed to have it for some reason. > > Thanks > Troy > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Masanz, James J. > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 9:33 AM > To: '[email protected]' > Subject: RE: releases questions > > >> We need to figure out if the UMLS license is compatible, if its not >> compatible it cannot be included. > > It's not compatible, so I suggest skipping 2.6 and I can shift focus entirely > to 3.0, which according to the release notes will have UMLS separately > downloadable. > > -- James > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:ctakes-dev-return-884- >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Jörn Kottmann >> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 2:16 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: releases questions >> >> On 11/19/2012 09:49 PM, Masanz, James J. wrote: >>> Mentors, >>> >>> I have a couple questions related to releases >>> >>> 1)How long should we expect for feedback on a release candidate from >> mentors? At what point is a reminder in order? >> >> I don't mind receiving a reminder off list, once in a while I need at >> least a day to respond. >> >>> There are two threads related to that question: >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ctakes-dev/201211 >>> .m >>> box/%3C924DE05C19409B438EB81DE683A942D922237B%40CHEXMBX1A.CHBOSTON.O >>> RG >>> %3E >> >> I spoke about it with Pei, this RC contains trove4j (LGPL) which is >> not compatible with the Apache license, in that state you cannot >> release it and he send some follow up mails to the list here afterwards. >> >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ctakes-dev/201211 >>> .m >>> box/%3C996FC801C05DF64A84246A106FACACD002BC21%40MSGPEXCHA08A.mfad.mf >>> ro >>> ot.org%3E >>> >>> 2) Is there something else that you wait on or look for from the >> community or the release managers that has been lacking? >>> >>> 3)I haven't seen an answer to the question of "Is it a hard >> requirement that we not include the subset of UMLS that we had >> included in cTAKES 2.5 in our Apache cTAKES incubating releases?" >> >> >> We need to figure out if the UMLS license is compatible, if its not >> compatible it cannot be included. The UMLS license is not listed on >> the Apache 3rd party license page, in that case you need to post on >> legal so they can have a look. >> >> There are two ways here to get further with the UMLS problem: >> a) Send a mail to the legal list to discuss the license >> b) Exclude the UMLS dictionary from the release >> >> Jörn
