Dear Ekaterina,
I cannot directly answer your question as I am not an UIMA or GATE
wizard. I can tell you why I elected UIMA rather than GATE and OpenNLP.
1. I use a finite state machine toolbox of my own written in Java but
I did not want to close the door to other applications wirtten in
C or in Perl and for what I read when I made my decision only UIMA
offered a clear and clean way to integrate C or Perl apps via
the descriptors fence.
2. I know UIMA has been used in heavy industrial applications by IBM
like Business Insight,
3. I did not find any major differences in the documentations
concerning the annotation scheme. In fact for my own purpose a
list of labels, a start and an end position in the text was just
fine for me.
4. I did not need any other linguistics tools than mines.
5. and last but not the least it was crucial to me to have the
possibility to integrate easily the unstructured information part
in Eclipse and only UIMA offered an easy way to do it.
6. Besides, it is not too hard to integrate external applications in
Eclipse so if somedays I need some other tools I know it will be
easier to integrate them in eclipse than in any other environment.
In short UIMA and Eclipse are solid and complementary on the long term I
believe they have better odds than GATE and OpenNLP, even if in terms of
implemented algorithms and programs UIMA is poorer than GATE and OpenNLP.
Ekaterina Buyko wrote:
Hi,
I am looking for a comparison of UIMA and GATE systems.
What does UIMA offer more or less as GATE does it? I am interested in
the general contrast between the UIMA and GATE and in particular in
the comparison of type systems and GATE annotation schemata. Can we
convert all UIMA types to GATE types without any restrictions or does
UIMA offers more features in implementation of annotation schemata as
GATE?
Thanks,
Katja
--
Cordialement/Regards
Christian Mauceri
http://hermeneute.com/Christian
