You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@opennlp.apache.org by James Kosin <ja...@gmail.com> on 2012/05/03 04:50:12 UTC
OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
Everyone,
Does anyone object to us releasing a 1.5.3 release?
I'm only asking because we have several important fixes currently in
trunk that some people are coming across as they are trying to use and
we also haven't had a release since graduating.
I'm not trying to push the issue; but, would be nice.
I've also got more data we can test against with the addition of the
ConLL 02 and ConLLX data I downloaded that is available.
Thanks,
James
Re: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
Posted by Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>.
Does anybody wants to be the release manager for 1.5.3?
Jörn
On 05/04/2012 06:15 AM, Jason Baldridge wrote:
> +1 to going forward with a 1.5.3 release that might not have all of the
> aforementioned items in it. I'd say release often, release early through
> the third digit in the version numbering and let 1.6, 1.7, etc be larger
> milestones. Regardless of this, the roadmap would be great.
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:15 PM, James Kosin<ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/3/2012 7:29 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
>>> On 05/03/2012 01:20 PM, william.colen@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> From my side I need to add things to the manual, like about the
>>>> evaluation
>>>> reports and customization factories. But documentation can be finished
>>>> while we try our release candidates.
>>>>
>>>> Besides that there is an issue Jörn mentioned before, we are not
>>>> supporting
>>>> OSGi as we should, at least not the Customization Factories.
>>>>
>>>> My vote is +1, but I would ask a couple of weeks for me to implement the
>>>> MutableDictionary and check the Customization Factories.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would really like to have a way to make the machine learning plug-able
>>> for this release, it shouldn't be that hard. But I haven't finished my
>>> proposal yet.
>>> This way would make it easy for other to experiment with different
>>> classifiers,
>>> e.g. the ones in MALLET.
>>>
>>> Jörn
>> +1, Can we all get a consensus on the time-frame and a list of items we
>> would like to get added for this release then? I'm only saying it so
>> that we at least have a plan others can track while waiting. The only
>> other options would be going back to the 1.5.2 release and maybe coming
>> up with either a patch or a build for the critical issues and bugs that
>> seem to produce undesirable results. Maybe calling it 1.5.2.1 or
>> something....
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
Posted by Jason Baldridge <ja...@gmail.com>.
+1 to going forward with a 1.5.3 release that might not have all of the
aforementioned items in it. I'd say release often, release early through
the third digit in the version numbering and let 1.6, 1.7, etc be larger
milestones. Regardless of this, the roadmap would be great.
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:15 PM, James Kosin <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/3/2012 7:29 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
> > On 05/03/2012 01:20 PM, william.colen@gmail.com wrote:
> >> From my side I need to add things to the manual, like about the
> >> evaluation
> >> reports and customization factories. But documentation can be finished
> >> while we try our release candidates.
> >>
> >> Besides that there is an issue Jörn mentioned before, we are not
> >> supporting
> >> OSGi as we should, at least not the Customization Factories.
> >>
> >> My vote is +1, but I would ask a couple of weeks for me to implement the
> >> MutableDictionary and check the Customization Factories.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I would really like to have a way to make the machine learning plug-able
> > for this release, it shouldn't be that hard. But I haven't finished my
> > proposal yet.
> > This way would make it easy for other to experiment with different
> > classifiers,
> > e.g. the ones in MALLET.
> >
> > Jörn
> +1, Can we all get a consensus on the time-frame and a list of items we
> would like to get added for this release then? I'm only saying it so
> that we at least have a plan others can track while waiting. The only
> other options would be going back to the 1.5.2 release and maybe coming
> up with either a patch or a build for the critical issues and bugs that
> seem to produce undesirable results. Maybe calling it 1.5.2.1 or
> something....
>
>
>
--
Jason Baldridge
Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics
The University of Texas at Austin
http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
http://twitter.com/jasonbaldridge
Re: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
Posted by James Kosin <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 5/3/2012 7:29 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
> On 05/03/2012 01:20 PM, william.colen@gmail.com wrote:
>> From my side I need to add things to the manual, like about the
>> evaluation
>> reports and customization factories. But documentation can be finished
>> while we try our release candidates.
>>
>> Besides that there is an issue Jörn mentioned before, we are not
>> supporting
>> OSGi as we should, at least not the Customization Factories.
>>
>> My vote is +1, but I would ask a couple of weeks for me to implement the
>> MutableDictionary and check the Customization Factories.
>>
>>
>
> I would really like to have a way to make the machine learning plug-able
> for this release, it shouldn't be that hard. But I haven't finished my
> proposal yet.
> This way would make it easy for other to experiment with different
> classifiers,
> e.g. the ones in MALLET.
>
> Jörn
+1, Can we all get a consensus on the time-frame and a list of items we
would like to get added for this release then? I'm only saying it so
that we at least have a plan others can track while waiting. The only
other options would be going back to the 1.5.2 release and maybe coming
up with either a patch or a build for the critical issues and bugs that
seem to produce undesirable results. Maybe calling it 1.5.2.1 or
something....
Re: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
Posted by Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>.
On 05/03/2012 01:20 PM, william.colen@gmail.com wrote:
> From my side I need to add things to the manual, like about the evaluation
> reports and customization factories. But documentation can be finished
> while we try our release candidates.
>
> Besides that there is an issue Jörn mentioned before, we are not supporting
> OSGi as we should, at least not the Customization Factories.
>
> My vote is +1, but I would ask a couple of weeks for me to implement the
> MutableDictionary and check the Customization Factories.
>
>
I would really like to have a way to make the machine learning plug-able
for this release, it shouldn't be that hard. But I haven't finished my
proposal yet.
This way would make it easy for other to experiment with different
classifiers,
e.g. the ones in MALLET.
Jörn
Re: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
Posted by "william.colen@gmail.com" <wi...@gmail.com>.
>From my side I need to add things to the manual, like about the evaluation
reports and customization factories. But documentation can be finished
while we try our release candidates.
Besides that there is an issue Jörn mentioned before, we are not supporting
OSGi as we should, at least not the Customization Factories.
My vote is +1, but I would ask a couple of weeks for me to implement the
MutableDictionary and check the Customization Factories.
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Jim - FooBar(); <ji...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I can also provide the "AggregateNameFinder" class which takes any number
> of name-finders and merges their results in order to get better evaluation
> statistics. Internally, it uses the "NameFinderME.**dropOverlappingSpans()"
> method to get rid of nested spans, which however does the simplistic thing
> of keeping the earliest span (ignoring the type of the span completely). I
> think being able to merge results from several name-finders is a killer
> feature that a lot of people will appreciate even if i don't think keeping
> the earliest span is sensible when trying to evaluate several finders on
> multiple entity types...
>
> Jim
>
>
> On 03/05/12 05:16, Boris Galitsky wrote:
>
>> Hi James
>> Should Similarity component come with 1.5.3?
>> It has been stable for more than a month now and needs just a final touch
>> RegardsBoris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 22:50:12 -0400
>>> From: james.kosin@gmail.com
>>> To: dev@opennlp.apache.org
>>> Subject: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
>>>
>>> Everyone,
>>>
>>> Does anyone object to us releasing a 1.5.3 release?
>>> I'm only asking because we have several important fixes currently in
>>> trunk that some people are coming across as they are trying to use and
>>> we also haven't had a release since graduating.
>>> I'm not trying to push the issue; but, would be nice.
>>>
>>> I've also got more data we can test against with the addition of the
>>> ConLL 02 and ConLLX data I downloaded that is available.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> James
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
Posted by Aliaksandr Autayeu <al...@autayeu.com>.
Guys, I need to fix CLI for SimpleTokenizer. Otherwise I have no objections.
Aliaksandr
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:34 PM, jim.foobar <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/05/12 12:16, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
>
>> On 05/03/2012 10:58 AM, Jim - FooBar(); wrote:
>>
>>> I can also provide the "AggregateNameFinder" class which takes any
>>> number of name-finders and merges their results in order to get better
>>> evaluation statistics. Internally, it uses the "NameFinderME.**dropOverlappingSpans()"
>>> method to get rid of nested spans, which however does the simplistic thing
>>> of keeping the earliest span (ignoring the type of the span completely). I
>>> think being able to merge results from several name-finders is a killer
>>> feature that a lot of people will appreciate even if i don't think keeping
>>> the earliest span is sensible when trying to evaluate several finders on
>>> multiple entity types...
>>>
>>
>> +1 to implement it based on NameFinderME.**dropOverlappingSpans.
>>
>> In my opinion that is still a good baseline. We can come up with more
>> specialized and sophisticated
>> approaches e.g. based on probabilities and limited for statistical name
>> finders.
>>
>> Jörn
>>
>>
> Yes, I agree it is not a bad baseline, but pretty soon we'll have to
> either look at the probabilities (if someone is trying to merge several
> models) or at the actual class of the namefinder that gave a particular
> prediction and reason on that...for example if a prediction came from a
> dictionary there is really no point in doubting it is there? It must be
> correct! anyway, i'd love to see this feature on 1.5.3 and a couple of
> weeks (what William needs) is not that long...
>
> Jim
>
> ps: btw, I 've been actually using the aggregate name-finder in my private
> build for almost 3 weeks now...I'm passing it 2 dictionary finders of
> different types and a maxent model that can also predict 2 types.
> Everything works just fine! :)
>
Re: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
Posted by "jim.foobar" <ji...@gmail.com>.
On 03/05/12 12:16, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
> On 05/03/2012 10:58 AM, Jim - FooBar(); wrote:
>> I can also provide the "AggregateNameFinder" class which takes any
>> number of name-finders and merges their results in order to get
>> better evaluation statistics. Internally, it uses the
>> "NameFinderME.dropOverlappingSpans()" method to get rid of nested
>> spans, which however does the simplistic thing of keeping the
>> earliest span (ignoring the type of the span completely). I think
>> being able to merge results from several name-finders is a killer
>> feature that a lot of people will appreciate even if i don't think
>> keeping the earliest span is sensible when trying to evaluate several
>> finders on multiple entity types...
>
> +1 to implement it based on NameFinderME.dropOverlappingSpans.
>
> In my opinion that is still a good baseline. We can come up with more
> specialized and sophisticated
> approaches e.g. based on probabilities and limited for statistical
> name finders.
>
> Jörn
>
Yes, I agree it is not a bad baseline, but pretty soon we'll have to
either look at the probabilities (if someone is trying to merge several
models) or at the actual class of the namefinder that gave a particular
prediction and reason on that...for example if a prediction came from a
dictionary there is really no point in doubting it is there? It must be
correct! anyway, i'd love to see this feature on 1.5.3 and a couple of
weeks (what William needs) is not that long...
Jim
ps: btw, I 've been actually using the aggregate name-finder in my
private build for almost 3 weeks now...I'm passing it 2 dictionary
finders of different types and a maxent model that can also predict 2
types. Everything works just fine! :)
Re: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
Posted by Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>.
On 05/03/2012 10:58 AM, Jim - FooBar(); wrote:
> I can also provide the "AggregateNameFinder" class which takes any
> number of name-finders and merges their results in order to get better
> evaluation statistics. Internally, it uses the
> "NameFinderME.dropOverlappingSpans()" method to get rid of nested
> spans, which however does the simplistic thing of keeping the earliest
> span (ignoring the type of the span completely). I think being able to
> merge results from several name-finders is a killer feature that a lot
> of people will appreciate even if i don't think keeping the earliest
> span is sensible when trying to evaluate several finders on multiple
> entity types...
+1 to implement it based on NameFinderME.dropOverlappingSpans.
In my opinion that is still a good baseline. We can come up with more
specialized and sophisticated
approaches e.g. based on probabilities and limited for statistical name
finders.
Jörn
Re: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
Posted by "Jim - FooBar();" <ji...@gmail.com>.
I can also provide the "AggregateNameFinder" class which takes any
number of name-finders and merges their results in order to get better
evaluation statistics. Internally, it uses the
"NameFinderME.dropOverlappingSpans()" method to get rid of nested spans,
which however does the simplistic thing of keeping the earliest span
(ignoring the type of the span completely). I think being able to merge
results from several name-finders is a killer feature that a lot of
people will appreciate even if i don't think keeping the earliest span
is sensible when trying to evaluate several finders on multiple entity
types...
Jim
On 03/05/12 05:16, Boris Galitsky wrote:
> Hi James
> Should Similarity component come with 1.5.3?
> It has been stable for more than a month now and needs just a final touch
> RegardsBoris
>
>
>
>
>
>> Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 22:50:12 -0400
>> From: james.kosin@gmail.com
>> To: dev@opennlp.apache.org
>> Subject: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
>>
>> Everyone,
>>
>> Does anyone object to us releasing a 1.5.3 release?
>> I'm only asking because we have several important fixes currently in
>> trunk that some people are coming across as they are trying to use and
>> we also haven't had a release since graduating.
>> I'm not trying to push the issue; but, would be nice.
>>
>> I've also got more data we can test against with the addition of the
>> ConLL 02 and ConLLX data I downloaded that is available.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> James
>
Re: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
Posted by "Jim - FooBar();" <ji...@gmail.com>.
Would the sandbox release have its own repo? Will users be able to get
it the usual way with maven-based dependency management tools?
Jim
On 04/05/12 14:39, william.colen@gmail.com wrote:
> How would the sandbox release work? We would create a branch from the trunk?
>
> I can't be the release manager for 1.5.3, although I would enjoy the
> experience. I am up to my neck with work for my thesis.
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Jörn Kottmann<ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We should make a sandbox release of it first.
>> In my opinion that has a few advantages:
>> - we can get user feedback
>> - it can be released more often and is not bound to the longer opennlp
>> cycle
>> - its easier to change it (e.g. breaking APi changes)
>>
>> Jörn
>>
>>
>> On 05/03/2012 06:16 AM, Boris Galitsky wrote:
>>
>>> Hi James
>>> Should Similarity component come with 1.5.3?
>>> It has been stable for more than a month now and needs just a final touch
>>> RegardsBoris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 22:50:12 -0400
>>>> From: james.kosin@gmail.com
>>>> To: dev@opennlp.apache.org
>>>> Subject: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
>>>>
>>>> Everyone,
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone object to us releasing a 1.5.3 release?
>>>> I'm only asking because we have several important fixes currently in
>>>> trunk that some people are coming across as they are trying to use and
>>>> we also haven't had a release since graduating.
>>>> I'm not trying to push the issue; but, would be nice.
>>>>
>>>> I've also got more data we can test against with the addition of the
>>>> ConLL 02 and ConLLX data I downloaded that is available.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
Posted by Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>.
With sandbox release I was referring to a release of things
in the sandbox, e.g. opennlp-similarity or the Corpus Server.
Why should we create a release branch after 1.5.3?
We can just make a 1.5.4 if something has to be fixed urgently.
Jörn
On 05/07/2012 04:55 AM, James Kosin wrote:
> We have a few decisions here.
>
> 1) Jorn's sandbox idea would probably be a snapshot of the current
> trunk. At least that is what I think he is proposing.
>
> 2) Your idea is also possible... with a branch, then we also have the
> ability to work and keep two branches up to date if needed. The 1.5.3
> branch could be patched with critical fixes we develop in the trunk and
> allow us to release more... kinda like what Apache HTTP server did with
> 1.4.3 and the newer branches. Only problems with it are (a) how long do
> we maintain the branch and (b) it becomes a management workload to
> determine what goes where and when to release.
>
> I'm going to think about it for a bit.
>
> James
>
> On 5/4/2012 9:39 AM, william.colen@gmail.com wrote:
>> How would the sandbox release work? We would create a branch from the trunk?
>>
>> I can't be the release manager for 1.5.3, although I would enjoy the
>> experience. I am up to my neck with work for my thesis.
>>
>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Jörn Kottmann<ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We should make a sandbox release of it first.
>>> In my opinion that has a few advantages:
>>> - we can get user feedback
>>> - it can be released more often and is not bound to the longer opennlp
>>> cycle
>>> - its easier to change it (e.g. breaking APi changes)
>>>
>>> Jörn
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/03/2012 06:16 AM, Boris Galitsky wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi James
>>>> Should Similarity component come with 1.5.3?
>>>> It has been stable for more than a month now and needs just a final touch
>>>> RegardsBoris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 22:50:12 -0400
>>>>> From: james.kosin@gmail.com
>>>>> To: dev@opennlp.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone object to us releasing a 1.5.3 release?
>>>>> I'm only asking because we have several important fixes currently in
>>>>> trunk that some people are coming across as they are trying to use and
>>>>> we also haven't had a release since graduating.
>>>>> I'm not trying to push the issue; but, would be nice.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've also got more data we can test against with the addition of the
>>>>> ConLL 02 and ConLLX data I downloaded that is available.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> James
>>>>>
Re: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
Posted by James Kosin <ja...@gmail.com>.
We have a few decisions here.
1) Jorn's sandbox idea would probably be a snapshot of the current
trunk. At least that is what I think he is proposing.
2) Your idea is also possible... with a branch, then we also have the
ability to work and keep two branches up to date if needed. The 1.5.3
branch could be patched with critical fixes we develop in the trunk and
allow us to release more... kinda like what Apache HTTP server did with
1.4.3 and the newer branches. Only problems with it are (a) how long do
we maintain the branch and (b) it becomes a management workload to
determine what goes where and when to release.
I'm going to think about it for a bit.
James
On 5/4/2012 9:39 AM, william.colen@gmail.com wrote:
> How would the sandbox release work? We would create a branch from the trunk?
>
> I can't be the release manager for 1.5.3, although I would enjoy the
> experience. I am up to my neck with work for my thesis.
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We should make a sandbox release of it first.
>> In my opinion that has a few advantages:
>> - we can get user feedback
>> - it can be released more often and is not bound to the longer opennlp
>> cycle
>> - its easier to change it (e.g. breaking APi changes)
>>
>> Jörn
>>
>>
>> On 05/03/2012 06:16 AM, Boris Galitsky wrote:
>>
>>> Hi James
>>> Should Similarity component come with 1.5.3?
>>> It has been stable for more than a month now and needs just a final touch
>>> RegardsBoris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 22:50:12 -0400
>>>> From: james.kosin@gmail.com
>>>> To: dev@opennlp.apache.org
>>>> Subject: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
>>>>
>>>> Everyone,
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone object to us releasing a 1.5.3 release?
>>>> I'm only asking because we have several important fixes currently in
>>>> trunk that some people are coming across as they are trying to use and
>>>> we also haven't had a release since graduating.
>>>> I'm not trying to push the issue; but, would be nice.
>>>>
>>>> I've also got more data we can test against with the addition of the
>>>> ConLL 02 and ConLLX data I downloaded that is available.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
Posted by "william.colen@gmail.com" <wi...@gmail.com>.
How would the sandbox release work? We would create a branch from the trunk?
I can't be the release manager for 1.5.3, although I would enjoy the
experience. I am up to my neck with work for my thesis.
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We should make a sandbox release of it first.
> In my opinion that has a few advantages:
> - we can get user feedback
> - it can be released more often and is not bound to the longer opennlp
> cycle
> - its easier to change it (e.g. breaking APi changes)
>
> Jörn
>
>
> On 05/03/2012 06:16 AM, Boris Galitsky wrote:
>
>> Hi James
>> Should Similarity component come with 1.5.3?
>> It has been stable for more than a month now and needs just a final touch
>> RegardsBoris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 22:50:12 -0400
>>> From: james.kosin@gmail.com
>>> To: dev@opennlp.apache.org
>>> Subject: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
>>>
>>> Everyone,
>>>
>>> Does anyone object to us releasing a 1.5.3 release?
>>> I'm only asking because we have several important fixes currently in
>>> trunk that some people are coming across as they are trying to use and
>>> we also haven't had a release since graduating.
>>> I'm not trying to push the issue; but, would be nice.
>>>
>>> I've also got more data we can test against with the addition of the
>>> ConLL 02 and ConLLX data I downloaded that is available.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> James
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
Posted by Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>.
We should make a sandbox release of it first.
In my opinion that has a few advantages:
- we can get user feedback
- it can be released more often and is not bound to the longer opennlp cycle
- its easier to change it (e.g. breaking APi changes)
Jörn
On 05/03/2012 06:16 AM, Boris Galitsky wrote:
> Hi James
> Should Similarity component come with 1.5.3?
> It has been stable for more than a month now and needs just a final touch
> RegardsBoris
>
>
>
>
>
>> Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 22:50:12 -0400
>> From: james.kosin@gmail.com
>> To: dev@opennlp.apache.org
>> Subject: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
>>
>> Everyone,
>>
>> Does anyone object to us releasing a 1.5.3 release?
>> I'm only asking because we have several important fixes currently in
>> trunk that some people are coming across as they are trying to use and
>> we also haven't had a release since graduating.
>> I'm not trying to push the issue; but, would be nice.
>>
>> I've also got more data we can test against with the addition of the
>> ConLL 02 and ConLLX data I downloaded that is available.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> James
>
RE: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
Posted by Boris Galitsky <bg...@hotmail.com>.
Hi James
Should Similarity component come with 1.5.3?
It has been stable for more than a month now and needs just a final touch
RegardsBoris
> Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 22:50:12 -0400
> From: james.kosin@gmail.com
> To: dev@opennlp.apache.org
> Subject: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
>
> Everyone,
>
> Does anyone object to us releasing a 1.5.3 release?
> I'm only asking because we have several important fixes currently in
> trunk that some people are coming across as they are trying to use and
> we also haven't had a release since graduating.
> I'm not trying to push the issue; but, would be nice.
>
> I've also got more data we can test against with the addition of the
> ConLL 02 and ConLLX data I downloaded that is available.
>
> Thanks,
> James
Re: OpenNLP 1.5.3 ....
Posted by "Jim - FooBar();" <ji...@gmail.com>.
On 03/05/12 03:50, James Kosin wrote:
> Everyone,
>
> Does anyone object to us releasing a 1.5.3 release?
> I'm only asking because we have several important fixes currently in
> trunk that some people are coming across as they are trying to use and
> we also haven't had a release since graduating.
> I'm not trying to push the issue; but, would be nice.
>
> I've also got more data we can test against with the addition of the
> ConLL 02 and ConLLX data I downloaded that is available.
>
> Thanks,
> James
+1 from me....but we still haven't decided what to do with the
aggregateNameFInder...
This is ready as well...
Jim