You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@uima.apache.org by Michael Baessler <mb...@michael-baessler.de> on 2008/12/16 08:31:10 UTC
Re: [VOTE] accept the Configurable Feature Extractor (CFE) into the
sandbox
Sorry I'm late... thanks for the reminder.
Here is a +0 from my side.
Let me explain why I'm not so convinced about this submission into the Sandbox.
If I follow the discussion threads it seems to me very similar to the ConceptMapper submission we
had in June 2008. There we added the coded after some discussions to the Sandbox and now it is there
and nothing (if I check the SVN history) happened after the initial import. That is from my side a
little bit disappointing. E.g. adding documentation to show the benefit, merging code with
DictionaryAnnotator concepts, adding some tests to see if all works fine...
I don't want to block the submission of CFE into the Sandbox, I just want to share my thoughts.
Maybe it works better this time.
-- Michael
Marshall Schor wrote:
> Please cast your vote to accept the Configurable Feature Extractor into
> the sandbox.
>
> There was a discussion on this on uima-user list (see
> http://markmail.org/message/ty6eq4ne7r4rvtim ) that ended with a request
> for a Jira submission. The original did not have documentation. The
> submission has now been updated and documentation included.
>
> [ ] +1 accept CAS viewer source code into sandbox
> [ ] 0 don't care
> [ ] -1 don't accept, I still have issues
>
>
> -Marshall
Re: [VOTE] accept the Configurable Feature Extractor (CFE) into the sandbox
Posted by Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>.
+0 because I doubt that there are many users who need a tool like
this, but there is no reason to block it.
Jörn
On Dec 16, 2008, at 8:31 AM, Michael Baessler wrote:
> Sorry I'm late... thanks for the reminder.
>
> Here is a +0 from my side.
>
> Let me explain why I'm not so convinced about this submission into
> the Sandbox.
> If I follow the discussion threads it seems to me very similar to
> the ConceptMapper submission we
> had in June 2008. There we added the coded after some discussions to
> the Sandbox and now it is there
> and nothing (if I check the SVN history) happened after the initial
> import. That is from my side a
> little bit disappointing. E.g. adding documentation to show the
> benefit, merging code with
> DictionaryAnnotator concepts, adding some tests to see if all works
> fine...
>
> I don't want to block the submission of CFE into the Sandbox, I just
> want to share my thoughts.
> Maybe it works better this time.
>
> -- Michael
>
>
> Marshall Schor wrote:
>> Please cast your vote to accept the Configurable Feature Extractor
>> into
>> the sandbox.
>>
>> There was a discussion on this on uima-user list (see
>> http://markmail.org/message/ty6eq4ne7r4rvtim ) that ended with a
>> request
>> for a Jira submission. The original did not have documentation. The
>> submission has now been updated and documentation included.
>>
>> [ ] +1 accept CAS viewer source code into sandbox
>> [ ] 0 don't care
>> [ ] -1 don't accept, I still have issues
>>
>>
>> -Marshall
>
Re: ConceptMapper update
Posted by Michael Tanenblatt <sl...@park-slope.net>.
No problem, I didn't realize that, but it makes sense.
Let me know what I can do to help get this thing finally released.
I'll be able to put a little time in here and there at this point, so
I will be more helpful and responsive, I hope.
On Mar 11, 2009, at 12:29 PM, Thilo Goetz wrote:
> Thanks for the patch. The name of the patch file does not
> matter at all. Some people name it after the Jira issue,
> but that's not important.
>
> Please see my comment about not sending a single patch for
> several issues, but that's just for future reference.
>
> --Thilo
>
> Michael Tanenblatt wrote:
>> OK, I know I promised an update a while ago, but the holidays and
>> work
>> commitments just took over my time. I am *finally* ready with a patch
>> that includes a small code change, but more importantly,
>> documentation!
>> I created a patch file and will attach it to a JIRA issue, just
>> wondering if there is some naming convention for these patch files. I
>> would love to get this thing finally released, as it has been
>> lingering
>> for way too long.
>>
>>
>> On Dec 16, 2008, at 7:18 AM, Michael Baessler wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the update, that are good news!
>>>
>>> -- Michael
>>>
>>> Michael Tanenblatt wrote:
>>>> Just to followup on the comment about ConceptMapper: I am in the
>>>> process
>>>> of putting together documentation right now, and hope to have
>>>> that done
>>>> by the end of this week. There is also a code change that was
>>>> requested
>>>> by someone that I want to make, and then I will do whatever I
>>>> need to do
>>>> to get ConceptMapper released (as I learn the necessary
>>>> steps...). I
>>>> have really just been so overwhelmed by other projects to close
>>>> out the
>>>> year that I just had to put ConceptMapper on pause.
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 16, 2008, at 2:31 AM, Michael Baessler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry I'm late... thanks for the reminder.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a +0 from my side.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me explain why I'm not so convinced about this submission
>>>>> into the
>>>>> Sandbox.
>>>>> If I follow the discussion threads it seems to me very similar
>>>>> to the
>>>>> ConceptMapper submission we
>>>>> had in June 2008. There we added the coded after some
>>>>> discussions to
>>>>> the Sandbox and now it is there
>>>>> and nothing (if I check the SVN history) happened after the
>>>>> initial
>>>>> import. That is from my side a
>>>>> little bit disappointing. E.g. adding documentation to show the
>>>>> benefit, merging code with
>>>>> DictionaryAnnotator concepts, adding some tests to see if all
>>>>> works
>>>>> fine...
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't want to block the submission of CFE into the Sandbox, I
>>>>> just
>>>>> want to share my thoughts.
>>>>> Maybe it works better this time.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Michael
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Marshall Schor wrote:
>>>>>> Please cast your vote to accept the Configurable Feature
>>>>>> Extractor
>>>>>> into
>>>>>> the sandbox.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was a discussion on this on uima-user list (see
>>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/ty6eq4ne7r4rvtim ) that ended with a
>>>>>> request
>>>>>> for a Jira submission. The original did not have
>>>>>> documentation. The
>>>>>> submission has now been updated and documentation included.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] +1 accept CAS viewer source code into sandbox
>>>>>> [ ] 0 don't care
>>>>>> [ ] -1 don't accept, I still have issues
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Marshall
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
Re: ConceptMapper update
Posted by Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>.
Thanks for the patch. The name of the patch file does not
matter at all. Some people name it after the Jira issue,
but that's not important.
Please see my comment about not sending a single patch for
several issues, but that's just for future reference.
--Thilo
Michael Tanenblatt wrote:
> OK, I know I promised an update a while ago, but the holidays and work
> commitments just took over my time. I am *finally* ready with a patch
> that includes a small code change, but more importantly, documentation!
> I created a patch file and will attach it to a JIRA issue, just
> wondering if there is some naming convention for these patch files. I
> would love to get this thing finally released, as it has been lingering
> for way too long.
>
>
> On Dec 16, 2008, at 7:18 AM, Michael Baessler wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the update, that are good news!
>>
>> -- Michael
>>
>> Michael Tanenblatt wrote:
>>> Just to followup on the comment about ConceptMapper: I am in the process
>>> of putting together documentation right now, and hope to have that done
>>> by the end of this week. There is also a code change that was requested
>>> by someone that I want to make, and then I will do whatever I need to do
>>> to get ConceptMapper released (as I learn the necessary steps...). I
>>> have really just been so overwhelmed by other projects to close out the
>>> year that I just had to put ConceptMapper on pause.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 16, 2008, at 2:31 AM, Michael Baessler wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry I'm late... thanks for the reminder.
>>>>
>>>> Here is a +0 from my side.
>>>>
>>>> Let me explain why I'm not so convinced about this submission into the
>>>> Sandbox.
>>>> If I follow the discussion threads it seems to me very similar to the
>>>> ConceptMapper submission we
>>>> had in June 2008. There we added the coded after some discussions to
>>>> the Sandbox and now it is there
>>>> and nothing (if I check the SVN history) happened after the initial
>>>> import. That is from my side a
>>>> little bit disappointing. E.g. adding documentation to show the
>>>> benefit, merging code with
>>>> DictionaryAnnotator concepts, adding some tests to see if all works
>>>> fine...
>>>>
>>>> I don't want to block the submission of CFE into the Sandbox, I just
>>>> want to share my thoughts.
>>>> Maybe it works better this time.
>>>>
>>>> -- Michael
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marshall Schor wrote:
>>>>> Please cast your vote to accept the Configurable Feature Extractor
>>>>> into
>>>>> the sandbox.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was a discussion on this on uima-user list (see
>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/ty6eq4ne7r4rvtim ) that ended with a
>>>>> request
>>>>> for a Jira submission. The original did not have documentation. The
>>>>> submission has now been updated and documentation included.
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1 accept CAS viewer source code into sandbox
>>>>> [ ] 0 don't care
>>>>> [ ] -1 don't accept, I still have issues
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Marshall
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: ConceptMapper update
Posted by Michael Tanenblatt <sl...@park-slope.net>.
OK, I know I promised an update a while ago, but the holidays and work
commitments just took over my time. I am *finally* ready with a patch
that includes a small code change, but more importantly,
documentation! I created a patch file and will attach it to a JIRA
issue, just wondering if there is some naming convention for these
patch files. I would love to get this thing finally released, as it
has been lingering for way too long.
On Dec 16, 2008, at 7:18 AM, Michael Baessler wrote:
> Thanks for the update, that are good news!
>
> -- Michael
>
> Michael Tanenblatt wrote:
>> Just to followup on the comment about ConceptMapper: I am in the
>> process
>> of putting together documentation right now, and hope to have that
>> done
>> by the end of this week. There is also a code change that was
>> requested
>> by someone that I want to make, and then I will do whatever I need
>> to do
>> to get ConceptMapper released (as I learn the necessary steps...). I
>> have really just been so overwhelmed by other projects to close out
>> the
>> year that I just had to put ConceptMapper on pause.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> On Dec 16, 2008, at 2:31 AM, Michael Baessler wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry I'm late... thanks for the reminder.
>>>
>>> Here is a +0 from my side.
>>>
>>> Let me explain why I'm not so convinced about this submission into
>>> the
>>> Sandbox.
>>> If I follow the discussion threads it seems to me very similar to
>>> the
>>> ConceptMapper submission we
>>> had in June 2008. There we added the coded after some discussions to
>>> the Sandbox and now it is there
>>> and nothing (if I check the SVN history) happened after the initial
>>> import. That is from my side a
>>> little bit disappointing. E.g. adding documentation to show the
>>> benefit, merging code with
>>> DictionaryAnnotator concepts, adding some tests to see if all works
>>> fine...
>>>
>>> I don't want to block the submission of CFE into the Sandbox, I just
>>> want to share my thoughts.
>>> Maybe it works better this time.
>>>
>>> -- Michael
>>>
>>>
>>> Marshall Schor wrote:
>>>> Please cast your vote to accept the Configurable Feature
>>>> Extractor into
>>>> the sandbox.
>>>>
>>>> There was a discussion on this on uima-user list (see
>>>> http://markmail.org/message/ty6eq4ne7r4rvtim ) that ended with a
>>>> request
>>>> for a Jira submission. The original did not have documentation.
>>>> The
>>>> submission has now been updated and documentation included.
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 accept CAS viewer source code into sandbox
>>>> [ ] 0 don't care
>>>> [ ] -1 don't accept, I still have issues
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Marshall
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] accept the Configurable Feature Extractor (CFE) into the
sandbox
Posted by Michael Baessler <mb...@michael-baessler.de>.
Thanks for the update, that are good news!
-- Michael
Michael Tanenblatt wrote:
> Just to followup on the comment about ConceptMapper: I am in the process
> of putting together documentation right now, and hope to have that done
> by the end of this week. There is also a code change that was requested
> by someone that I want to make, and then I will do whatever I need to do
> to get ConceptMapper released (as I learn the necessary steps...). I
> have really just been so overwhelmed by other projects to close out the
> year that I just had to put ConceptMapper on pause.
>
> Michael
>
>
> On Dec 16, 2008, at 2:31 AM, Michael Baessler wrote:
>
>> Sorry I'm late... thanks for the reminder.
>>
>> Here is a +0 from my side.
>>
>> Let me explain why I'm not so convinced about this submission into the
>> Sandbox.
>> If I follow the discussion threads it seems to me very similar to the
>> ConceptMapper submission we
>> had in June 2008. There we added the coded after some discussions to
>> the Sandbox and now it is there
>> and nothing (if I check the SVN history) happened after the initial
>> import. That is from my side a
>> little bit disappointing. E.g. adding documentation to show the
>> benefit, merging code with
>> DictionaryAnnotator concepts, adding some tests to see if all works
>> fine...
>>
>> I don't want to block the submission of CFE into the Sandbox, I just
>> want to share my thoughts.
>> Maybe it works better this time.
>>
>> -- Michael
>>
>>
>> Marshall Schor wrote:
>>> Please cast your vote to accept the Configurable Feature Extractor into
>>> the sandbox.
>>>
>>> There was a discussion on this on uima-user list (see
>>> http://markmail.org/message/ty6eq4ne7r4rvtim ) that ended with a request
>>> for a Jira submission. The original did not have documentation. The
>>> submission has now been updated and documentation included.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 accept CAS viewer source code into sandbox
>>> [ ] 0 don't care
>>> [ ] -1 don't accept, I still have issues
>>>
>>>
>>> -Marshall
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] accept the Configurable Feature Extractor (CFE) into the sandbox
Posted by Michael Tanenblatt <sl...@park-slope.net>.
Just to followup on the comment about ConceptMapper: I am in the
process of putting together documentation right now, and hope to have
that done by the end of this week. There is also a code change that
was requested by someone that I want to make, and then I will do
whatever I need to do to get ConceptMapper released (as I learn the
necessary steps...). I have really just been so overwhelmed by other
projects to close out the year that I just had to put ConceptMapper on
pause.
Michael
On Dec 16, 2008, at 2:31 AM, Michael Baessler wrote:
> Sorry I'm late... thanks for the reminder.
>
> Here is a +0 from my side.
>
> Let me explain why I'm not so convinced about this submission into
> the Sandbox.
> If I follow the discussion threads it seems to me very similar to
> the ConceptMapper submission we
> had in June 2008. There we added the coded after some discussions to
> the Sandbox and now it is there
> and nothing (if I check the SVN history) happened after the initial
> import. That is from my side a
> little bit disappointing. E.g. adding documentation to show the
> benefit, merging code with
> DictionaryAnnotator concepts, adding some tests to see if all works
> fine...
>
> I don't want to block the submission of CFE into the Sandbox, I just
> want to share my thoughts.
> Maybe it works better this time.
>
> -- Michael
>
>
> Marshall Schor wrote:
>> Please cast your vote to accept the Configurable Feature Extractor
>> into
>> the sandbox.
>>
>> There was a discussion on this on uima-user list (see
>> http://markmail.org/message/ty6eq4ne7r4rvtim ) that ended with a
>> request
>> for a Jira submission. The original did not have documentation. The
>> submission has now been updated and documentation included.
>>
>> [ ] +1 accept CAS viewer source code into sandbox
>> [ ] 0 don't care
>> [ ] -1 don't accept, I still have issues
>>
>>
>> -Marshall
>