Hi Peter,
TextMarker seems very very interesting and it seems it would be a good
addition to UIMA framework.
Personally I'd need some more time to take a look at it deeply but it sounds
like a nice contribution.
Hope to be able to get back to this soon :)
Cheers,
Tommaso

2010/12/14 Peter Klügl <[email protected]>

> Hi Thilo,
>
> Am 14.12.2010 18:32, schrieb Thilo Götz:
>
>  Hi Peter,
>>
>> I was very impressed when you showed me a demo of TextMarker
>> last year, so I think it's great you're coming up with this
>> proposal.  I will download and play with it over the coming
>> few weeks, but I'll probably be really busy before Xmas, so
>> it might take a while...
>>
>>  Thanks :-)
>
> Just a short note: As TextMarker is still based DLTK 1.0, the correct
> plugins are maybe missing in the Helios update site. I think I'll add
> another link in the wiki and improve the feature dependencies. Besides that,
> no problems should occur.
>
>
>  If we decide to accept TextMarker into UIMA, we will need a
>> code grant: http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>> I assume your university owns the rights to all the code, so
>> you may want to bring this up with your legal department.  I
>> know it's a bit early, but I'm bringing this up now because
>> there may be some lead time.
>>
>>
> Yes, I will contact our legal department.
>
>
>
>> So just to make sure I understand this correctly: the
>> language is completely independent of the Eclipse based
>> development environment.  I could in principle write
>> rules with just a text editor, if I wanted to.  Correct?
>>
>>
> Yes. And I assume that some people are even doing that. But in this case
> you need to configure the analysis engine descriptor correctly since it is
> not created by the workbench.
>
>
>  I think such a language is a very important feature
>> that UIMA is currently missing.  We have nothing that
>> compares with GATE's JAPE language, for example.
>>
>>  There is of course the LanguageWare platform, but as you know there are
> also many differences.
>
>
> Peter
>

Reply via email to