Like I said, I'm not against publishing type system descriptors, and having a repository of descriptors seems like a good idea. What makes me anxious is the idea that some subset of them might be dubbed "recommended" rather than as "potentially useful sample". If everybody happens to use only a few of the "potentially useful samples" by voting with their feet, then so much the better.
-----Original Message----- From: Thilo Goetz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:48 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Annotation Mapping Annotator 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
