OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

uima message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [uima] Building Sub-Groups -- Your Input Required



My preferred groups to work:


3)       Type system base model

       2)     type system language

       8)    Aggregate Analytics

      10)   Java binding



For the meeting time, I have no real preference. All propositions works well for EST time



Face to face meeting:  I prefer the Text Analytics Summit on June in Boston.






From: David Ferrucci [mailto:ferrucci@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:17 AM
To: uima@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: j.tsujii@manchester.ac.uk; Sophia.ananiadou@manchester.ac.uk; carl.madson@sri.com; kano@is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp; nltngan@is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Subject: [uima] Building Sub-Groups -- Your Input Required



On the last call we decided to form small maybe 2-3 person subgroups to "own" different elements of the specification going forward.

The idea is that each sub-group would do a deep-dive on a proposed element of the specification in the IBM paper (e.g., CAS, Type-System, Abstract interfaces etc.).

The initial task would be to critique the section, identify issues and make recommendations on how to take it forward to a final form. The TC as a whole would vote on the sub-groups' recommendations and action plans. The sub-groups would then take on the task to implement the agreed-upon action plan.

Sub-groups will have leads whose responsibility it will be to share evolving comments/questions/issues as part of an email discussion with the whole TC. This is a critical component of the plan since the biweekly meeting will NOT suffice if everyone had to come up to speed on  recommendations during the calls.

Please read the following sections in the paper (if you have not already) and send me your preferences for leading and/or joining 2 or more of the following areas. I think it is important to have non-IBM participation on all of these. Please also note that some of these sections are more straightforward than others and I imagine will take less time/effort.

1. CAS Specification
2. Type-system Language
3. Type-System Base Model
4. Behavioral Meta-Data Specification (challenging issues here)
5. Processing Element Meta-data specification
6. Abstract Interfaces
7. WSDL Service Descriptions
8. Aggregate Analytic Descriptor Specification
9. SOAP Bindings
10. Java Bindings (proposed as an appendix by TC but not in original paper)


Discussion Topics (or what may be considered open issues) are discussed in section 7 of the paper. These may turn into core specifications, or may more likely lead to recommendations rather than core specifications. This section has a number of sub-sections.They will require different treatment, any thoughts?
We can decide on an approach for these at the next call.

David A. Ferrucci, PhD
Senior Manager, Semantic Analysis & Integration
Chief Architect,  UIMA
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
19 Skyline Drive, Hawthorne, NY 10532
Tel: 914-784-7847, 8/863-7847

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]