You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@uima.apache.org by Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com> on 2018/02/09 08:25:11 UTC
Re: Parameters for PEAR
Hi,
did you get an answer?
Best,
Peter
Am 10.01.2018 um 17:12 schrieb Marshall Schor:
> I'm pinging some people who might know something about LanguageWare's use of
> this feature. -Marshall
>
>
> On 1/10/2018 6:07 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> Am 10.01.2018 um 10:57 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho:
>>>> On 16.12.2017, at 13:48, Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is it a problem for us to simply implement Matthias's solution: Make use
>>>>> of the parameters in the PearSpecifier and just set them in the wrapped
>>>>> analysis engine description if they are compatible?
>>>>>
>>>> Are there any opinions on this?
>>> First, I was a bit confused and though the "PearSpecifier" would be
>>> this guy here [1]. The I realized it is this one [2].
>>>
>>> Looking at where the parameters of the PearSpecifier are used: apparently the
>>> setParameter and getParameter are only ever called directly in unit tests.
>>>
>>> Does it mean that the frameworks so far does not make any use of these parameter
>>> as all? Or maybe they are used via some inherited methods...?
>>>
>>> It sounds reasonable to me that these parameters are forwarded to the top-level
>>> component in the PEAR - the question I am asking myself is though: why doesn't
>>> this already happen and (maybe) what else where these PearSpecifier parameters
>>> intended to do then?
>> Yes, these are exactly the questions we had :-)
>>
>> I rather wanted to ask twice before I open an issue or implement
>> something. Could always be that I missed something. Initially, I thought
>> that the IBM guys (LanguageWare) made massive use of the PEAR concept
>> and they surely had some possibility to configure their PEARs.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> -- Richard
>>>
>>> [1] http://uima.apache.org/d/uimaj-current/references.html#ugr.ref.pear.installation_descriptor
>>> [2] http://uima.apache.org/d/uimaj-current/references.html#ugr.ref.pear.specifier
--
Peter Klügl
R&D Text Mining/Machine Learning
Averbis GmbH
Tennenbacher Str. 11
79106 Freiburg
Germany
Fon: +49 761 708 394 0
Fax: +49 761 708 394 10
Email: peter.kluegl@averbis.com
Web: https://averbis.com
Headquarters: Freiburg im Breisgau
Register Court: Amtsgericht Freiburg im Breisgau, HRB 701080
Managing Directors: Dr. med. Philipp Daumke, Dr. Kornél Markó
Re: Parameters for PEAR
Posted by Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com>.
Ok, I opened an issue for this.
Peter
Am 12.02.2018 um 17:46 schrieb Marshall Schor:
> nope. sorry. -Marshall
>
>
> On 2/9/2018 3:25 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> did you get an answer?
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> Am 10.01.2018 um 17:12 schrieb Marshall Schor:
>>> I'm pinging some people who might know something about LanguageWare's use of
>>> this feature. -Marshall
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/10/2018 6:07 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 10.01.2018 um 10:57 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho:
>>>>>> On 16.12.2017, at 13:48, Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it a problem for us to simply implement Matthias's solution: Make use
>>>>>>> of the parameters in the PearSpecifier and just set them in the wrapped
>>>>>>> analysis engine description if they are compatible?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there any opinions on this?
>>>>> First, I was a bit confused and though the "PearSpecifier" would be
>>>>> this guy here [1]. The I realized it is this one [2].
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at where the parameters of the PearSpecifier are used: apparently the
>>>>> setParameter and getParameter are only ever called directly in unit tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does it mean that the frameworks so far does not make any use of these parameter
>>>>> as all? Or maybe they are used via some inherited methods...?
>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds reasonable to me that these parameters are forwarded to the top-level
>>>>> component in the PEAR - the question I am asking myself is though: why doesn't
>>>>> this already happen and (maybe) what else where these PearSpecifier parameters
>>>>> intended to do then?
>>>> Yes, these are exactly the questions we had :-)
>>>>
>>>> I rather wanted to ask twice before I open an issue or implement
>>>> something. Could always be that I missed something. Initially, I thought
>>>> that the IBM guys (LanguageWare) made massive use of the PEAR concept
>>>> and they surely had some possibility to configure their PEARs.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Richard
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://uima.apache.org/d/uimaj-current/references.html#ugr.ref.pear.installation_descriptor
>>>>> [2] http://uima.apache.org/d/uimaj-current/references.html#ugr.ref.pear.specifier
--
Peter Klügl
R&D Text Mining/Machine Learning
Averbis GmbH
Tennenbacher Str. 11
79106 Freiburg
Germany
Fon: +49 761 708 394 0
Fax: +49 761 708 394 10
Email: peter.kluegl@averbis.com
Web: https://averbis.com
Headquarters: Freiburg im Breisgau
Register Court: Amtsgericht Freiburg im Breisgau, HRB 701080
Managing Directors: Dr. med. Philipp Daumke, Dr. Kornél Markó
Re: Parameters for PEAR
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
nope. sorry. -Marshall
On 2/9/2018 3:25 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> did you get an answer?
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Peter
>
>
> Am 10.01.2018 um 17:12 schrieb Marshall Schor:
>> I'm pinging some people who might know something about LanguageWare's use of
>> this feature. -Marshall
>>
>>
>> On 1/10/2018 6:07 AM, Peter Klügl wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 10.01.2018 um 10:57 schrieb Richard Eckart de Castilho:
>>>>> On 16.12.2017, at 13:48, Peter Klügl <pe...@averbis.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it a problem for us to simply implement Matthias's solution: Make use
>>>>>> of the parameters in the PearSpecifier and just set them in the wrapped
>>>>>> analysis engine description if they are compatible?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Are there any opinions on this?
>>>> First, I was a bit confused and though the "PearSpecifier" would be
>>>> this guy here [1]. The I realized it is this one [2].
>>>>
>>>> Looking at where the parameters of the PearSpecifier are used: apparently the
>>>> setParameter and getParameter are only ever called directly in unit tests.
>>>>
>>>> Does it mean that the frameworks so far does not make any use of these parameter
>>>> as all? Or maybe they are used via some inherited methods...?
>>>>
>>>> It sounds reasonable to me that these parameters are forwarded to the top-level
>>>> component in the PEAR - the question I am asking myself is though: why doesn't
>>>> this already happen and (maybe) what else where these PearSpecifier parameters
>>>> intended to do then?
>>> Yes, these are exactly the questions we had :-)
>>>
>>> I rather wanted to ask twice before I open an issue or implement
>>> something. Could always be that I missed something. Initially, I thought
>>> that the IBM guys (LanguageWare) made massive use of the PEAR concept
>>> and they surely had some possibility to configure their PEARs.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> -- Richard
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://uima.apache.org/d/uimaj-current/references.html#ugr.ref.pear.installation_descriptor
>>>> [2] http://uima.apache.org/d/uimaj-current/references.html#ugr.ref.pear.specifier