Sorry James for committing this so quickly, I thought the original
direction was an oversight so just fixed it without discussion.
I made a dependency graph with pen and paper this morning when maven was
complaining about a dependency cycle. My takeaway was that
relation-extractor was somehow screwing everything up by being the only
component pointing the way it was pointing.
Is it ok to leave the fix for now, and pending the results of discussion
on 165 go change it back if necessary later?
Tim
On 02/22/2013 03:18 PM, Masanz, James J. wrote:
I disagree. Or I should say that it should depend on what the outcome of
CTAKES-165 is.
It is necessary and I think it is the right direction right now.
Maybe clinical-pipeline should have been called basic-ner or something....
seems to be a source of confusion now. but I digress.
-- James
-----Original Message-----
From: ctakes-notifications-return-409-
[email protected] [mailto:ctakes-notifications-
[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tim
Miller (JIRA)
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 2:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [jira] [Created] (CTAKES-170) relation extractor has dependency
on clinical pipeilne
Tim Miller created CTAKES-170:
---------------------------------
Summary: relation extractor has dependency on clinical
pipeilne
Key: CTAKES-170
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CTAKES-170
Project: cTAKES
Issue Type: Bug
Reporter: Tim Miller
Assignee: Dmitriy Dligach
Priority: Minor
dependency should go in the other direction if it is necessary at all.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA
administrators For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
