Fw: [uima] Groups - UIMA Specifiation Draft (UIMA_Specification_Draft_v4.doc) uploaded

See Karin's message below.  She
changed her email address recently and has since not been able to send
or receive emails to the list.

  -Adam

_____________________________

 Adam Lally

 Senior Software Engineer 

 Semantic Analysis & Integration

 IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

 Hawthorne, NY, 10532

 Tel: 914-784-7706,  T/L: 863-7706

 

----- Forwarded by Adam
Lally/Watson/IBM on 03/28/2008 09:59 AM -----

"Karin Verspoor"
<> 

Sent by: 

03/27/2008 06:22 PM

To

Adam Lally/Watson/IBM@IBMUS

cc

Subject

Fwd: FW: [uima] Groups - UIMA Specifiation
Draft (UIMA_Specification_Draft_v4.doc) uploaded

Here it is.  I wish I had realized you didn't
get it sooner!

Karin

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Karin Verspoor <>

Date: Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 3:21 PM

Subject: FW: [uima] Groups - UIMA Specifiation Draft

(UIMA_Specification_Draft_v4.doc) uploaded

To: 

 _______________________________________________________________

 Karin Verspoor, Computational Linguist

 Team Lead, Knowledge and Language Science team

 Computer, Computation & Statistics division

 http://public.lanl.gov/verspoor

 email:    Mail: Los Alamos National Laboratory

 phone: 505-667-5086              PO
Box 1663, MS B265

 fax:   505-665-5220              Los
Alamos, NM 87545

 _______________________________________________________________

 ------ Forwarded Message

 From: Karin Verspoor <>

 Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:13:50 -0600

 To: <>

 Conversation: [uima] Groups - UIMA Specifiation Draft

 (UIMA_Specification_Draft_v4.doc) uploaded

 Subject: Re: [uima] Groups - UIMA Specifiation Draft

 (UIMA_Specification_Draft_v4.doc) uploaded

 Who has ownership for making changes to this document?  Well, I've
attached

 an edited draft with "Track changes on", with some changes through
4.3.2.2.

 Some additional comments:

 - "tooling" is used in several places.  This sounds funny
to me.  Would

 "tools" be better, or is "tooling" really what is
intended?

 - should "Candidate Compliance Points" be moved to the Formal
Specification

 section?  Should the modal language be removed, e.g. "is required"
rather

 than "may be required"?  Not sure what is expected with
these.

 - in Section 1 (Introduction), "Analytics" is used prior to
the

 introduction/definition of that term.  Would it be better to use
"processing

 modules" or "analysis modules" or something like that?

 - 1.1.4: is there a cite for TAF?  What is it?  It might be
a good idea to

 spell out what the various acronyms like "GATE" etc. stand for.

 - 4.1.3.4: Question: So how does the interpreter know to treat the "1"
in

 myFoo="1" as an ID reference rather than an integer? Through
knowledge of

 the type system model?

 - 4.2: where "attributes" are referred here, shouldn't it be
more generally

 "features" (cf section 4.1.2).  Rather than "filler
for its attributes"

 should the text refer to "values for these features" instead?

 - 4.2.1: what are the implications of being "Aligned with the UML
standard"?

 - 4.2.2: MOF and EMOF have the same citation. Is this correct?

 - 4.2.3 "example of an object model" -- more specifically a
"example of a

 type system model"?

 Karin

 _______________________________________________________________

 Karin Verspoor, Computational Linguist

 Team Lead, Knowledge and Language Science team

 Computer, Computation & Statistics division

 http://public.lanl.gov/verspoor

 email:    Mail: Los Alamos National Laboratory

 phone: 505-667-5086              PO
Box 1663, MS B265

 fax:   505-665-5220              Los
Alamos, NM 87545

 _______________________________________________________________

 ------ End of Forwarded Message

UIMA_Specification_Draft_v4_KMV.doc