standardizing namespaces for the UIMA framework

[Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>]

The earlier versions of the UIMA framework had some built-in namespaces 
that reflected the originating company.
When moving to Apache, the team thought these name's prefixes should be 
changed to org.apache.

To achieve perhaps even better standardization and stability over the 
long haul, how about changing these prefixes to something like org.uima?
-Marshall

Re: standardizing namespaces for the UIMA framework

[Michael Baessler <mb...@michael-baessler.de>]

+1

for doing the change later...

Thilo Goetz wrote:
> +1
>
> I agree that this would be a change disruptive to our users, but it's 
> still not something we should be doing now, for the reasons given by 
> Adam and myself.  I expect it'll be easily 2 years or more before we 
> see a standard with defined interfaces coming out of OASIS.  Maybe 
> then we're ready for UIMA 3.0, and our users will accept another 
> change in namespace.
>
> Adam Lally wrote:
>> To me, naming our interfaces org.uima would imply that they were not a
>> product of apache, but decided by some entity called "uima.org".  Like
>> in the example Thilo suggested, with org.w3c namespaces for things
>> that originated from the W3C rather than from any Apache project.
>>
>> Built-in types are currently have a "uima.cas" prefix and could stay
>> that way if we like.  I'm not sure why introducing "org" would be
>> helpful.  It just seems strange to have anything named "org.uima" if
>> there is not a separate entity whose domain name is uima.org.
>>
>> -Adam
>>
>> On 11/3/06, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>> Main issue with waiting: these changes are disruptive to our users.
>>> Moving to Apache gives us one renaming opportunity (to change from
>>> com.<previous-company>. etc.).
>>>
>>> I agree with impls being org.apache.  Besides the interfaces, we have
>>> things like the built-in types - I'd like to see these with org.uima
>>> prefixes.
>>>
>>> -Marshall
>>>
>
>
>

Re: standardizing namespaces for the UIMA framework

[Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>]

+1

I agree that this would be a change disruptive to our users, but it's 
still not something we should be doing now, for the reasons given by 
Adam and myself.  I expect it'll be easily 2 years or more before we see 
a standard with defined interfaces coming out of OASIS.  Maybe then 
we're ready for UIMA 3.0, and our users will accept another change in 
namespace.

Adam Lally wrote:
> To me, naming our interfaces org.uima would imply that they were not a
> product of apache, but decided by some entity called "uima.org".  Like
> in the example Thilo suggested, with org.w3c namespaces for things
> that originated from the W3C rather than from any Apache project.
> 
> Built-in types are currently have a "uima.cas" prefix and could stay
> that way if we like.  I'm not sure why introducing "org" would be
> helpful.  It just seems strange to have anything named "org.uima" if
> there is not a separate entity whose domain name is uima.org.
> 
> -Adam
> 
> On 11/3/06, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>> Main issue with waiting: these changes are disruptive to our users.
>> Moving to Apache gives us one renaming opportunity (to change from
>> com.<previous-company>. etc.).
>>
>> I agree with impls being org.apache.  Besides the interfaces, we have
>> things like the built-in types - I'd like to see these with org.uima
>> prefixes.
>>
>> -Marshall
>>

Re: standardizing namespaces for the UIMA framework

[Adam Lally <al...@alum.rpi.edu>]

To me, naming our interfaces org.uima would imply that they were not a
product of apache, but decided by some entity called "uima.org".  Like
in the example Thilo suggested, with org.w3c namespaces for things
that originated from the W3C rather than from any Apache project.

Built-in types are currently have a "uima.cas" prefix and could stay
that way if we like.  I'm not sure why introducing "org" would be
helpful.  It just seems strange to have anything named "org.uima" if
there is not a separate entity whose domain name is uima.org.

-Adam

On 11/3/06, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> Main issue with waiting: these changes are disruptive to our users.
> Moving to Apache gives us one renaming opportunity (to change from
> com.<previous-company>. etc.).
>
> I agree with impls being org.apache.  Besides the interfaces, we have
> things like the built-in types - I'd like to see these with org.uima
> prefixes.
>
> -Marshall
>

Re: standardizing namespaces for the UIMA framework

[Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>]

Main issue with waiting: these changes are disruptive to our users.  
Moving to Apache gives us one renaming opportunity (to change from 
com.<previous-company>. etc.). 

I agree with impls being org.apache.  Besides the interfaces, we have 
things like the built-in types - I'd like to see these with org.uima 
prefixes.

-Marshall

Re: standardizing namespaces for the UIMA framework

[Adam Lally <al...@alum.rpi.edu>]

On 11/3/06, Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> I would think the org.uima namespace should be reserved for standardized
> UIMA interfaces, originating most likely from OASIS.  Then our
> implementation prefix would still be org.apache.  Other Apache projects
> that implement standards are handling this similarly.  For example, some
> of the interfaces that Xerces implements have a org.xml or org.w3c
> namespace; the implementation is still prefixed with org.apache.
>
> Our interfaces are certainly good candidates for such a standardized
> interfaces, but I'd wait with renaming to a org.uima (or similar)
> namespace until such a proposal is forthcoming from OASIS.
>

+1

Re: standardizing namespaces for the UIMA framework

[Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>]

I would think the org.uima namespace should be reserved for standardized 
UIMA interfaces, originating most likely from OASIS.  Then our 
implementation prefix would still be org.apache.  Other Apache projects 
that implement standards are handling this similarly.  For example, some 
of the interfaces that Xerces implements have a org.xml or org.w3c 
namespace; the implementation is still prefixed with org.apache.

Our interfaces are certainly good candidates for such a standardized 
interfaces, but I'd wait with renaming to a org.uima (or similar) 
namespace until such a proposal is forthcoming from OASIS.

--Thilo

Marshall Schor wrote:
> The earlier versions of the UIMA framework had some built-in namespaces 
> that reflected the originating company.
> When moving to Apache, the team thought these name's prefixes should be 
> changed to org.apache.
> 
> To achieve perhaps even better standardization and stability over the 
> long haul, how about changing these prefixes to something like org.uima?
> -Marshall