LeHouillier, Frank D. wrote:
I'm not against publishing type system descriptors. I'm against having
them be canonized as part of UIMA proper, particularly of Apache UIMA.
Apache UIMA is supposed to be an implementation of a standard, not a
standard itself.
While you might say that it is proactive to put forth your "recommended"
type system for NewsML2 events, if I disagree with it for some reason I
might think that it is destructive. These are things that should be
hashed out by committees of interested parties rather than developers,
who are typically looking at the problem from their own point of view.
[...]
There's no reason that committee couldn't be the uima-user
mailing list. Where else do you get so many interested
parties to show up? As Pascal says somewhere else, we
could have type systems in the sandbox, even competing
ones. Then people can vote with their feet. Most likely,
those type systems will survive that come with the most
useful analysis technology. Conversely, those type systems
that show a lot of activity will receive even more. That's
a more useful standard than one hashed out in a committee
which is later ignored by everybody. And yes, it's
developer driven, open source and open community.
One criterion for acceptance could be that any proposed
type system must come with some useful analysis (even if
it's just an adapter to some non-UIMA technology).
--Thilo
