On 07/20/2011 06:17 PM, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
2011/7/20 Marshall Schor<m...@schor.com>
This may be all wrong-headed - but I wonder if the basic use case is to do
something like the following: Take a bunch of annotators (and maybe flow
controllers) together with a top-level aggregate XML specifying parameter
overrides, etc., and "wrap" them so they become a single OSGi bundle, that
can
then be embedded in an OSGi container? If so, then perhaps instead of
having a
"set" of individually OSGi-i-fied annotators, like we do now, maybe we
should
have instead a tool that does this for a set of annotators, etc.
the use case in Clerezza is slightly different as it allows both the
scenario where one executes an existing pipeline (using OpenCalaisAnnotator
and AlchemyAPIAnnotator) and the scenario when one runs a custom pipeline,
eventually using other existing UIMA components, defined in another bundle.
I still think having individual OSGi versions of each annotator would be
better.
+1
Independent annotator allow to play with easily, and only load required
ones.
2011/7/20 Marshall Schor<m...@schor.com>
On 7/20/2011 11:18 AM, Marshall Schor wrote:
On 7/20/2011 8:13 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
On 7/20/11 1:55 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
What does it mean to "deploy" inside of an Apache Felix instance?
I did that once, and simply embedded everything in one bundle, even UIMA
itself. This way I could use UIMA plus some AEs to do analysis as a
service
for other OSGi bundles inside Felix.
This suggests having a tool to make this "easy"; but also suggests that
having
individual addon annotators packaged up as a "complete UIMA pipeline" may
not be
very interesting to anyone.
Is this right? If so, perhaps we should not release this osgi versions
in the
addons at this time.
Do you mean not in the binary package or not release them at all (i.e. not
deploying them on Maven central too)?
Tommaso
That also would reduce the size of the distribution
considerably (about 100 MB of 150 MB is for the OSGi versions).
oops, I was wrong - delete the following...
In computing
this, I also noticed that the tagger osgi packaging was missing the 19.5
mb of
statistical models...
-Marshall
Jörn
