If you merge the type systems of the components you want to use you end up with a huge mess of a merged type system and you have to do type system conversions between the AEs.
Jörn On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Peter Klügl <[email protected]> wrote: > I still don't get it. > > > You can reuse all components if you include some type system mapping > that knows the transformation. I combined some of our components with > DKPro Core, ClearTK, cTAKES and JCore components. > > > Our components won't work with the DKPro Core typesystem even if the > UIMA Framework would support more "laziness" or dynamic typing (for > different reasons, e.g., missing information). > > > I get the point with code generation though. > > > Best, > > Peter > > > Am 09.09.2016 um 15:11 schrieb Joern Kottmann: > > A very good reason to use a framework like UIMA is that we can reuse > > components > > and don't have to build everything from scratch (if I have to do that I > > don't need UIMA these days). > > > > To be able to reuse a component it must work with multiple type systems > or > > can easily be adapted > > to a custom type system. > > > > I am personally think the convenience the JCas brings is outweighed many > > times by all the complexity > > and disadvantages which come with it, e.g. code generation step, having > > extra special classes and mostly impossible > > to reuse the written code. > > > > Jörn > > > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Peter Klügl <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> How should this be solved/improved? I do not see it. > >> > >> You have either generic analysis engines with parameters for the types, > >> or the analysis engine knows the types and depends on it, regardless if > >> you use CAS or JCas. > >> > >> Isn't that the thing with static typed feature structures? If you have > >> Java code that depends on a class hierarchy, you are stuck with that > >> hierarchy. (I hope this discussion won't go in a direction that > >> dynamically typed programming languages are better) > >> > >> > >> I probably do not understand the motivation. Can you give me an example? > >> > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> > >> Peter > >> > >> > >> > >> Am 09.09.2016 um 13:57 schrieb Joern Kottmann: > >>> I personally think that we depend way too much on particular type > systems > >>> in UIMA. I really hope we can solve this to some degree in UIMA 3, if I > >>> today > >>> write code using JCAS I am totally stuck with the TS I use, reusing any > >> of > >>> that > >>> code with a different TS is impossible. > >>> > >>> The best you can do is using just the CAS, but then it is still > difficult > >>> to support > >>> multiple type systems (e.g. complex configuration, various styles) and > >> allow > >>> reusing of the component in different systems. > >>> > >>> Jörn > >>> > >>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho < > >> [email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 30.08.2016, at 16:39, Peter Klügl <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> If there no standard type system, then people have two options: > create > >>>>> their own one or reuse an existing type system of a component > >>>>> repository, e.g., DKPro Core. As far as I know LiMoSINe [1] moved > from > >>>>> their own type system to DKPro Core (I waiting for some text to put > on > >>>>> our external resources page - in case they read this). I also was > >>>>> thinking about switching our NLP components to the DKPro Core type > >>>>> system, but there are several issues preventing that, first of all > that > >>>>> I cannot build it :-/ > >>>> /me Apache/UIMA hat off, DKPro Core hat on > >>>> > >>>> Ok... I am finally addressing this annoying Windowsisim... > >>>> > >>>> https://github.com/dkpro/dkpro-core/issues/414 > >>>> > >>>> Btw. feel free to submit issues for DKPro Core type system > improvements. > >>>> We actually do evolve the TS - trying to avoid breaking changes... > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> > >>>> -- Richard > >> > >
