On 7/20/2011 12:36 PM, florent andré wrote: > > > 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.
Maybe this could make more sense, if the bundle had only the annotator code, and didn't also contain a copy of the entire UIMA framework in every bundle? -Marshall > >> >> >> 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 >>>>> >>> >> >
