Hi Scott,

what version of UIMA are you referring to?

--Thilo

Sommer, Scott (Contractor) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm looking into writing an indexer for the semantic search cas consumer
>>from the UIMA-examples. 
> 
> The main reason I want to do this is because our CAS passed to the
> indexer does not have a SourceDocumentInformation annotation in our
> current set up. I have had a look at the API docs and can see that the
> UimaJuruDocument class has 5 different constructors, which basically
> shows that most of the arguments are optional (If this is incorrect,
> please let me know). I am assuming that in the example, the
> SourceDocumentInformation annotation contains information that is passed
> to the UimaJuruDocument constructor, but I don't have the
> SourceDocumentInformation annotation in the CAS so of course the
> SemanticSearchCasIndexer in the example fails. I would love to be able
> to simply get the source code for the Indexer and modify it so that it
> doesn't require the SourceDocumentInformation annotation, but there is
> no source code included in the jar containing this class.
> 
> My only other options would appear to be; to write an Indexer of my own
> which does not require the SourceDocumentInformation annotation, or, to
> put in a SourceDocumentAnnotation annotation just for the indexer which
> contains nothing useful.
> 
> I would like to avoid putting useless annotations into the CAS, so I've
> been reading through the SIAPI.pdf and the javadoc. The SIAPI pdf seems
> largely focused on the searching with next to nothing about how to write
> an indexer. Is there a better source of information on the SIAPI from an
> indexing perspective? And overall, is there a better solution to this
> problem?
> 
> Cheers,
> Scott Sommer.
> 
> 
> IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Australian Defence 
> Organisation and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the CRIMES 
> ACT 1914.  If you have received this email in error, you are requested to 
> contact the sender and delete the email.
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to