Hi, I think the cleanest way would be to introduce 'computeEnhancements(ContentItem ci, Map<String, Object> enhancementContext)'.
I do not know how Olivier wanted to make this optional but as we do not have any stable API right now, we could introduce such a change. Changing the existing engines that we have is not a big deal IMO. I am more +1 to do it the right way now instead of fixing it at some later point. The question to me is whether we should also change the implementation of the ExecutionMetadata. Should this be part of the ContentItem? Best, - Fabian 2012/12/10 David Riccitelli <[email protected]> > 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 > > > > ******************************************************************************** > -- Fabian http://twitter.com/fctwitt
