Hello, I think the discussed design is correct, i.e. the configuration context should not be bound to the content item. Though, as far as I understand, STANBOL-488 has been currently implemented as 'getEnhancementProperties() : Map<String,Object>', correct?
Changing to 'computeEnhancements(ContentItem ci, Map<String, Object> enhancementContext)' would require too much effort on the existing engines, maybe then, if we want to go that way, we should create a new Engine interface such as EnhancementContextEngine which would then support the new method? Let me know, I am open to any possible implementation. BR David On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Rupert Westenthaler < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > FYI: STANBOL-488 [1] is exactly about this topic and if I remember > correctly this is even implemented (but not yet activated/used) > because there was no agreement on this issue. So if we agree on a > design it should be relatively easy to introduce this. > > > best > Rupert > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-488 > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:45 PM, David Riccitelli <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Ok, perfect. > > > > While we further check over the configuration content part, I've > > implemented a sample that wraps the ContentItem in a ContentItem bag > which > > contains also a configuration dictionary: > > - ContentItemBag: > > > https://github.com/insideout10/stanbol-facade/blob/master/stanbol-facade-api/src/main/java/io/insideout/stanbol/facade/models/ContentItemBag.java > > > > The wrapper is fed via the enhancementJobManager: > > - > > > https://github.com/insideout10/stanbol-facade/blob/master/stanbol-facade-api/src/main/java/io/insideout/stanbol/facade/services/TaskService.java > > > > This is a sample service which dumps the configuration parameters: > > - > > > https://github.com/insideout10/stanbol-facade/blob/master/stanbol-facade-api/src/main/java/io/insideout/stanbol/facade/engines/ContentItemBagSpyEngine.java > > > > In the above examples the content to be lifted and and the configuration > > parameters are encapsulated in a JSON request (converted to a > TaskRequest) > > such as this: > > > > { > > "configuration": { > > "configuration.parameter.1": "value.1", > > "configuration.parameter.2": "value.2" > > }, > > "mimeType": "application/rdf+xml", > > "content": " ... " > > } > > > > The above can of course be changed as soon as we define the content part > > for the per-call configuration of engines. > > > > BR, > > David > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Fabian Christ < > [email protected] > >> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> maybe we could define a specific content part [1] for such config > >> information. This way we do not have to change the interface at all. It > is > >> just a matter of filling a to be defined "config content part". > >> > >> Then we have to write a simple engine that takes config params from an > >> incoming request and writes this information into the config content > part. > >> Engines can look up the config per request from the config content part. > >> > >> Maybe Rupert can say more about this as he has defined the content part > >> infrastructure. > >> > >> [1] > >> > https://stanbol.apache.org/docs/trunk/components/enhancer/contentitem.html > >> > >> > >> 2012/12/10 David Riccitelli <[email protected]> > >> > >> > Thanks Fabian, > >> > > >> > Yes, I am thinking in the context of the engines that we're > contributing, > >> > but it could be useful for the existing engines as well. > >> > > >> > Currently the engines only rely on a provided ContentItem instance for > >> the > >> > enhancement process (computeEnhancements(ContentItem ci)): maybe the > >> > ContentItem interface could be extended to include a reference to a > >> > configuration map. > >> > > >> > Engines that support custom configurations will look-up from this map > for > >> > per-call configurations. This would not affect existing engines, but > >> would > >> > enable them to use this feature in the future. > >> > > >> > What do you think? > >> > > >> > David > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Fabian Christ < > >> > [email protected] > >> > > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hi, > >> > > > >> > > are you referring to existing engines in Stanbol or are you using > your > >> > own > >> > > ones? > >> > > > >> > > At the moment we do not support such a concept of per request > configs. > >> At > >> > > least the current engines do not look in the ContentItem for their > >> > config. > >> > > > >> > > We have another requirement to make it possible to pass existing > >> metadata > >> > > into the request and send text plus existing metadata to Stanbol. > Maybe > >> > > such config per request could be a similar case. > >> > > > >> > > Anyway, currently it is not yet supported out of the box IIRC. > >> > > > >> > > Best, > >> > > - Fabian > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 2012/12/10 David Riccitelli <[email protected]> > >> > > > >> > > > Hello, > >> > > > > >> > > > We have a need to allow passing some engine configuration > parameters > >> in > >> > > > each call. > >> > > > > >> > > > For example, we might want for one call to have confidence score > > >> 0.5, > >> > > and > >> > > > for another call > 0.9 (just making up the numbers). > >> > > > > >> > > > Is this feasible now? Can the per-call configuration parameters be > >> > bound > >> > > to > >> > > > the ContentItem? If yes, how? > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > >> > > > David > >> > > > > >> > > > -- > >> > > > David Riccitelli > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > ******************************************************************************** > >> > > > InsideOut10 s.r.l. > >> > > > P.IVA: IT-11381771002 > >> > > > Fax: +39 0110708239 > >> > > > --- > >> > > > LinkedIn: http://it.linkedin.com/in/riccitelli > >> > > > Twitter: ziodave > >> > > > --- > >> > > > Layar Partner Network< > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > http://www.layar.com/publishing/developers/list/?page=1&country=&city=&keyword=insideout10&lpn=1 > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > ******************************************************************************** > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Fabian > >> > > http://twitter.com/fctwitt > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > David Riccitelli > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > ******************************************************************************** > >> > InsideOut10 s.r.l. > >> > P.IVA: IT-11381771002 > >> > Fax: +39 0110708239 > >> > --- > >> > LinkedIn: http://it.linkedin.com/in/riccitelli > >> > Twitter: ziodave > >> > --- > >> > Layar Partner Network< > >> > > >> > http://www.layar.com/publishing/developers/list/?page=1&country=&city=&keyword=insideout10&lpn=1 > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > ******************************************************************************** > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Fabian > >> http://twitter.com/fctwitt > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > David Riccitelli > > > > > ******************************************************************************** > > InsideOut10 s.r.l. > > P.IVA: IT-11381771002 > > Fax: +39 0110708239 > > --- > > LinkedIn: http://it.linkedin.com/in/riccitelli > > Twitter: ziodave > > --- > > Layar Partner Network< > http://www.layar.com/publishing/developers/list/?page=1&country=&city=&keyword=insideout10&lpn=1 > > > > > ******************************************************************************** > > > > -- > | Rupert Westenthaler [email protected] > | Bodenlehenstraße 11 ++43-699-11108907 > | A-5500 Bischofshofen > -- David Riccitelli ******************************************************************************** InsideOut10 s.r.l. P.IVA: IT-11381771002 Fax: +39 0110708239 --- LinkedIn: http://it.linkedin.com/in/riccitelli Twitter: ziodave --- Layar Partner Network<http://www.layar.com/publishing/developers/list/?page=1&country=&city=&keyword=insideout10&lpn=1> ********************************************************************************
