Hi all, we are still in evaluation phase, so I am wondering, if the described scenario makes any sense to you. I am not much into NLP area, so, expert view would be very helpful. Also, drools support for adding dialects, makes me think if something can be done with textmarker. Drools people did that for clips as described here: http://blog.athico.com/search/label/Clips Does textmarker have defined BNF or EBNF grammar, so we could use ANTLR for building AST? Thanks for any opinion/comment. Kind regards, Mohamed
--- On Tue, 7/21/09, Mohamed <[email protected]> wrote: From: Mohamed <[email protected]> Subject: Re: drools for writing grammars To: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2009, 3:16 PM Hi, we are buiding knoledge management platform with the aim to support both GATE and UIMA type system. Our main concern is not to provide interoperability between two models, but to provide user the oportunity to select any of the two and upload rule files that will work with either UIMA or GATE, depending on their type (package). Also, the idea is that uploaded rule is compiled on fly and inserted into memory making it immediately available for processing. That is why drools seems interesting to me. Also, if it is somehow possible to use its LHS expressions to work with both UIMA and GATE type model, and allow arbitrary Java code on RHS, with great authoring support that it provides out of box, it makes it very suitable for our client, since it is only one rule language to learn (and support). Using textmarker for uima, and jape for gate leaves us with a problem how to unify two authoring approaches, support both languages, etc. kind regards, Mohamed --- On Tue, 7/21/09, Roberto Franchini <[email protected]> wrote: From: Roberto Franchini <[email protected]> Subject: Re: drools for writing grammars To: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2009, 1:25 PM On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Peter Klügl<[email protected]> wrote: [cut] > > The implementation of JAPE should be faster than TextMarker, but I don't > know how fast the bridge is. In contrast to JAPE, TextMarker is still in an > early project phase. JAPE is well documented and tested, TextMarker not > (yet). > I wrote my own bridge for JAPE since the one in GATE 4.0 was compatible only with IBM-UIMA. It's a custom, very custom, ad targeted to our type sytem. This bridge map to JAPE and back to UIMA a lot of annotations, so there are a lot of objects to be garbage collected for each document. For comparison a 3-thread-pipeline with jape-uima-bridge inside poresses 80/90000 docs per hour. My docs are small: < 5kb. The same pipeline without jape goes to 140k doc/h. Cheers, R. -- Roberto Franchini http://www.celi.it http://www.blogmeter.it http://www.memesphere.it Tel +39-011-6600814 jabber:[email protected] skype:ro.franchini
