Re: SVM implementation for Mahout

[Joe Kumar <jo...@gmail.com>]

I just got back from Vikas reg svmlin and he is ok to use apache 2.0
license.

That aside, I thought of sharing some of my perspectives.
SVM is one of the widely used classification algorithms and I guess it is
better to have our own implementation. We could reuse existing libraries for
non-core algorithms or components. Assuming that SVM on Mahout would be
quite widely used, would it be better to write our own ?

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Apache 2.0 License would be easiest I imagine?
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Joe Kumar <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > He was asking about what licensing he should specify for svmlin so that
> it
> > can used in mahout ? any thoughts / suggestions please
>

Re: SVM implementation for Mahout

[Joe Kumar <jo...@gmail.com>]

Ted,
Thanks for your feedback and thoughts. those f/b make sense.

Isabel,
I havent specifically probed Vikas about joining Mahout but he is very much
willing to help us out in any way he can. I'll probably check if he would be
interested in joining Mahout. It sure would be good to have him on the team.


On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Isabel Drost <is...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Monday 04 May 2009 06:39:45 Ted Dunning wrote:
> > In the meantime, whatever is the easiest way to make forward progress is
> > probably your best bet.
>
> +1 from me.
>
> Joe did you talk to Vikas about joining the Mahout project? I would prefer
> integrating not only the code but also getting the developers in - provided
> they have similar goals to what Mahout wants to achieve.
>
> Isabel
>
>
>

Re: SVM implementation for Mahout

[Isabel Drost <is...@apache.org>]

On Monday 04 May 2009 06:39:45 Ted Dunning wrote:
> In the meantime, whatever is the easiest way to make forward progress is
> probably your best bet.

+1 from me.

Joe did you talk to Vikas about joining the Mahout project? I would prefer 
integrating not only the code but also getting the developers in - provided 
they have similar goals to what Mahout wants to achieve.

Isabel

Re: SVM implementation for Mahout

[Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>]

I think that the primary criterion is that we want to provide capabilities
for users of Mahout.  Providing an SVM implementation would be the first
priority, regardless of source (presuming licensing and such is handled
correctly).

That said, the rub is likely to come when a scalable implementation is to be
produced.  SVM isn't nearly as simple to parallelize as some other
algorithms so it may well become necessary to make some pretty substantial
modifications.

In the meantime, whatever is the easiest way to make forward progress is
probably your best bet.

On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Joe Kumar <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I just got back from Vikas reg svmlin and he is ok to use apache 2.0
> license.
>
> That aside, I thought of sharing some of my perspectives.
> SVM is one of the widely used classification algorithms and I guess it is
> better to have our own implementation. We could reuse existing libraries
> for
> non-core algorithms or components. Assuming that SVM on Mahout would be
> quite widely used, would it be better to write our own ?
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Apache 2.0 License would be easiest I imagine?
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Joe Kumar <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > He was asking about what licensing he should specify for svmlin so that
> > it
> > > can used in mahout ? any thoughts / suggestions please
> >
>



-- 
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve

111 West Evelyn Ave. Ste. 202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
www.deepdyve.com
858-414-0013 (m)
408-773-0220 (fax)