Seems ORP isn't really catching on with people. I know personally I don't have the time I had hoped to have to get it going. At the same time, I really think it could be a good project. We've got some tools put together, but we still haven't done much about the bigger goal of a "self contained" evaluation.

Any thoughts on how we should proceed with ORP?

-Grant
--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8

Search Discussions

  • Robert Muir at Sep 12, 2010 at 12:52 am
    i propose we take what we have and import into lucene-java's benchmark
    contrib. it already has integration with wikipedia and reuters for perf
    purposes, and the quality package is actually there anyways. later, maybe
    more people have time and contrib/benchmark evolves naturally... e.g. to
    modules/benchmark with solr support as a first big step.
    On Sep 11, 2010 7:33 PM, "Grant Ingersoll" wrote:
    Seems ORP isn't really catching on with people. I know personally I don't
    have the time I had hoped to have to get it going. At the same time, I
    really think it could be a good project. We've got some tools put together,
    but we still haven't done much about the bigger goal of a "self contained"
    evaluation.
    Any thoughts on how we should proceed with ORP?

    -Grant
    --------------------------
    Grant Ingersoll
    http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
  • Grant Ingersoll at Sep 12, 2010 at 11:30 am

    On Sep 11, 2010, at 8:51 PM, Robert Muir wrote:

    i propose we take what we have and import into lucene-java's benchmark
    contrib. it already has integration with wikipedia and reuters for perf
    purposes, and the quality package is actually there anyways. later, maybe
    more people have time and contrib/benchmark evolves naturally... e.g. to
    modules/benchmark with solr support as a first big step.
    Yeah, that seems reasonable. I have been thinking lately that it might be useful to pull our DocMaker stuff out separately from benchmark so that people have easy ways of generating content from things like Wikipedia, etc.

    Still, at the end of the day, I like what ORP _could_ bring to the table and to some extent I think that is lost by folding it into Lucene benchmark.
    On Sep 11, 2010 7:33 PM, "Grant Ingersoll" wrote:
    Seems ORP isn't really catching on with people. I know personally I don't
    have the time I had hoped to have to get it going. At the same time, I
    really think it could be a good project. We've got some tools put together,
    but we still haven't done much about the bigger goal of a "self contained"
    evaluation.
    Any thoughts on how we should proceed with ORP?

    -Grant
  • Itamar Syn-Hershko at Sep 13, 2010 at 4:34 pm
    With the proper two-way open-source development process (taking and then
    giving) I think it can become an important part of open-IR technologies,
    just like what Lucene did to the search engines world. What ORP has to
    offer is of great interest to HebMorph, an open-source project of mine
    trying to decide on what is the best way to index and search Hebrew texts.

    To this end I decided to put some of the development efforts of the
    HebMorph project into making tools for the ORP. I have announced this
    before, but unfortunately I had to attend to more pressing tasks before
    I could complete this (and there was no response from the community
    anyway...). Just in case you're interested in seeing what I came up with
    so far: http://github.com/synhershko/Orev.

    IMHO, the ORP should stand by itself, and relate to Lucene/Solr only as
    its basis framework for these initial stages. Perhaps also try to
    attract more people who could find an interest in what it has to offer,
    so it can really start growing.

    Itamar.
    On 12/9/2010 1:29 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
    On Sep 11, 2010, at 8:51 PM, Robert Muir wrote:

    i propose we take what we have and import into lucene-java's benchmark
    contrib. it already has integration with wikipedia and reuters for perf
    purposes, and the quality package is actually there anyways. later, maybe
    more people have time and contrib/benchmark evolves naturally... e.g. to
    modules/benchmark with solr support as a first big step.
    Yeah, that seems reasonable. I have been thinking lately that it might be useful to pull our DocMaker stuff out separately from benchmark so that people have easy ways of generating content from things like Wikipedia, etc.

    Still, at the end of the day, I like what ORP _could_ bring to the table and to some extent I think that is lost by folding it into Lucene benchmark.

    On Sep 11, 2010 7:33 PM, "Grant Ingersoll"wrote:
    Seems ORP isn't really catching on with people. I know personally I don't
    have the time I had hoped to have to get it going. At the same time, I
    really think it could be a good project. We've got some tools put together,
    but we still haven't done much about the bigger goal of a "self contained"
    evaluation.
    Any thoughts on how we should proceed with ORP?

    -Grant
  • Omar Alonso at Sep 13, 2010 at 5:36 pm
    I think ORP is a great candidate for crowdsourcing/human computation. In the last year or so there's been quite a bit of research and applications on this. See the page for the SIGIR workshop on using crowdsourcing for IR evaluation: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~cse2010/

    Omar

    --- On Mon, 9/13/10, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
    From: Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>
    Subject: Re: Whither ORP?
    To: openrelevance-dev@lucene.apache.org
    Date: Monday, September 13, 2010, 9:33 AM
    With the proper two-way open-source
    development process (taking and then giving) I think it can
    become an important part of open-IR technologies, just like
    what Lucene did to the search engines world. What ORP has to
    offer is of great interest to HebMorph, an open-source
    project of mine trying to decide on what is the best way to
    index and search Hebrew texts.

    To this end I decided to put some of the development
    efforts of the HebMorph project into making tools for the
    ORP. I have announced this before, but unfortunately I had
    to attend to more pressing tasks before I could complete
    this (and there was no response from the community
    anyway...). Just in case you're interested in seeing what I
    came up with so far: http://github.com/synhershko/Orev.

    IMHO, the ORP should stand by itself, and relate to
    Lucene/Solr only as its basis framework for these initial
    stages. Perhaps also try to attract more people who could
    find an interest in what it has to offer, so it can really
    start growing.

    Itamar.
    On 12/9/2010 1:29 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
    On Sep 11, 2010, at 8:51 PM, Robert Muir wrote:

    i propose we take what we have and import into
    lucene-java's benchmark
    contrib.  it already has integration with
    wikipedia and reuters for perf
    purposes, and the quality package is actually
    there anyways.  later, maybe
    more people have time and contrib/benchmark
    evolves naturally... e.g. to
    modules/benchmark with solr support as a first big
    step.
    Yeah, that seems reasonable.  I have been
    thinking lately that it might be useful to pull our DocMaker
    stuff out separately from benchmark so that people have easy
    ways of generating content from things like Wikipedia, etc.
    Still, at the end of the day, I like what ORP _could_
    bring to the table and to some extent I think that is lost
    by folding it into Lucene benchmark.
    On Sep 11, 2010 7:33 PM, "Grant Ingersoll"wrote:
    Seems ORP isn't really catching on with
    people. I know personally I don't
    have the time I had hoped to have to get it going.
    At the same time, I
    really think it could be a good project. We've got
    some tools put together,
    but we still haven't done much about the bigger
    goal of a "self contained"
    evaluation.
    Any thoughts on how we should proceed with
    ORP?
    -Grant
  • Dan Cardin at Sep 14, 2010 at 1:05 am
    Hello,

    I am new to ORP. I would like to contribute to the project. I do not have a
    lot of experience in this field of IR, crowd sourcing or AI. If someone
    could take the lead and set forward path I would be willing to contribute my
    skill set to ORP.

    How can I help? I have a lot of experience doing software development and
    system administration.

    Cheers,
    --Dan
    On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Omar Alonso wrote:

    I think ORP is a great candidate for crowdsourcing/human computation. In
    the last year or so there's been quite a bit of research and applications on
    this. See the page for the SIGIR workshop on using crowdsourcing for IR
    evaluation: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~cse2010/<http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/%7Ecse2010/>

    Omar

    --- On Mon, 9/13/10, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
    From: Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>
    Subject: Re: Whither ORP?
    To: openrelevance-dev@lucene.apache.org
    Date: Monday, September 13, 2010, 9:33 AM
    With the proper two-way open-source
    development process (taking and then giving) I think it can
    become an important part of open-IR technologies, just like
    what Lucene did to the search engines world. What ORP has to
    offer is of great interest to HebMorph, an open-source
    project of mine trying to decide on what is the best way to
    index and search Hebrew texts.

    To this end I decided to put some of the development
    efforts of the HebMorph project into making tools for the
    ORP. I have announced this before, but unfortunately I had
    to attend to more pressing tasks before I could complete
    this (and there was no response from the community
    anyway...). Just in case you're interested in seeing what I
    came up with so far: http://github.com/synhershko/Orev.

    IMHO, the ORP should stand by itself, and relate to
    Lucene/Solr only as its basis framework for these initial
    stages. Perhaps also try to attract more people who could
    find an interest in what it has to offer, so it can really
    start growing.

    Itamar.
    On 12/9/2010 1:29 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
    On Sep 11, 2010, at 8:51 PM, Robert Muir wrote:

    i propose we take what we have and import into
    lucene-java's benchmark
    contrib. it already has integration with
    wikipedia and reuters for perf
    purposes, and the quality package is actually
    there anyways. later, maybe
    more people have time and contrib/benchmark
    evolves naturally... e.g. to
    modules/benchmark with solr support as a first big
    step.
    Yeah, that seems reasonable. I have been
    thinking lately that it might be useful to pull our DocMaker
    stuff out separately from benchmark so that people have easy
    ways of generating content from things like Wikipedia, etc.
    Still, at the end of the day, I like what ORP _could_
    bring to the table and to some extent I think that is lost
    by folding it into Lucene benchmark.
    On Sep 11, 2010 7:33 PM, "Grant Ingersoll"<gsingers@apache.org>
    wrote:
    Seems ORP isn't really catching on with
    people. I know personally I don't
    have the time I had hoped to have to get it going.
    At the same time, I
    really think it could be a good project. We've got
    some tools put together,
    but we still haven't done much about the bigger
    goal of a "self contained"
    evaluation.
    Any thoughts on how we should proceed with
    ORP?
    -Grant

  • Grant Ingersoll at Sep 14, 2010 at 1:52 pm
    I think the biggest hurdle we have in front of us is curating a data set that we can redistribute. I'm in the process of uploading all the ASF public mail archives as of Sept. 13 to Amazon S3. I also have some tools (thanks to Chris Rhodes) for processing this into Solr XML. I think this would give us a standard corpus to start with and would fairly well mimic some enterprise search/eDiscovery tasks pretty well.

    At any rate, as with any community, the proof is in people stepping up to help out. I like that so many people suggested we keep going. As for what to do, I think the options are pretty wide open and there is opportunity for people to define the project w/o any previous encumbrances.

    Some ideas that have been kicked around in the past:
    1. Creative-commons data set, judgments, queries
    2. Open Street Map (spatial search)
    3. Mail archives
    4. A crowd sourcing application. Given a set of documents and queries, have people provide judgments. Ideally, this runs in a web container and we could probably even find resources to host it here. Combining that with one of the items above, we would be on our way. App could also solicit queries by providing users open search box and opportunities to browse the data.

    I know much of this is simplistic, but it is a start.

    -Grant

    On Sep 13, 2010, at 9:04 PM, Dan Cardin wrote:

    Hello,

    I am new to ORP. I would like to contribute to the project. I do not have a
    lot of experience in this field of IR, crowd sourcing or AI. If someone
    could take the lead and set forward path I would be willing to contribute my
    skill set to ORP.

    How can I help? I have a lot of experience doing software development and
    system administration.

    Cheers,
    --Dan
    On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Omar Alonso wrote:

    I think ORP is a great candidate for crowdsourcing/human computation. In
    the last year or so there's been quite a bit of research and applications on
    this. See the page for the SIGIR workshop on using crowdsourcing for IR
    evaluation: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~cse2010/<http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/%7Ecse2010/>

    Omar

    --- On Mon, 9/13/10, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
    From: Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>
    Subject: Re: Whither ORP?
    To: openrelevance-dev@lucene.apache.org
    Date: Monday, September 13, 2010, 9:33 AM
    With the proper two-way open-source
    development process (taking and then giving) I think it can
    become an important part of open-IR technologies, just like
    what Lucene did to the search engines world. What ORP has to
    offer is of great interest to HebMorph, an open-source
    project of mine trying to decide on what is the best way to
    index and search Hebrew texts.

    To this end I decided to put some of the development
    efforts of the HebMorph project into making tools for the
    ORP. I have announced this before, but unfortunately I had
    to attend to more pressing tasks before I could complete
    this (and there was no response from the community
    anyway...). Just in case you're interested in seeing what I
    came up with so far: http://github.com/synhershko/Orev.

    IMHO, the ORP should stand by itself, and relate to
    Lucene/Solr only as its basis framework for these initial
    stages. Perhaps also try to attract more people who could
    find an interest in what it has to offer, so it can really
    start growing.

    Itamar.
    On 12/9/2010 1:29 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
    On Sep 11, 2010, at 8:51 PM, Robert Muir wrote:

    i propose we take what we have and import into
    lucene-java's benchmark
    contrib. it already has integration with
    wikipedia and reuters for perf
    purposes, and the quality package is actually
    there anyways. later, maybe
    more people have time and contrib/benchmark
    evolves naturally... e.g. to
    modules/benchmark with solr support as a first big
    step.
    Yeah, that seems reasonable. I have been
    thinking lately that it might be useful to pull our DocMaker
    stuff out separately from benchmark so that people have easy
    ways of generating content from things like Wikipedia, etc.
    Still, at the end of the day, I like what ORP _could_
    bring to the table and to some extent I think that is lost
    by folding it into Lucene benchmark.
    On Sep 11, 2010 7:33 PM, "Grant Ingersoll"<gsingers@apache.org>
    wrote:
    Seems ORP isn't really catching on with
    people. I know personally I don't
    have the time I had hoped to have to get it going.
    At the same time, I
    really think it could be a good project. We've got
    some tools put together,
    but we still haven't done much about the bigger
    goal of a "self contained"
    evaluation.
    Any thoughts on how we should proceed with
    ORP?
    -Grant

    --------------------------
    Grant Ingersoll
    http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
  • Dan Cardin at Sep 14, 2010 at 2:23 pm
    Hello,

    This is a great start! I am interested in helping with the development of a
    crowd sourcing application. The next step would be creating a set of
    requirements for the web app. Would the ORP wiki be a good place to store
    the requirements?

    --Dan

    On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

    I think the biggest hurdle we have in front of us is curating a data set
    that we can redistribute. I'm in the process of uploading all the ASF
    public mail archives as of Sept. 13 to Amazon S3. I also have some tools
    (thanks to Chris Rhodes) for processing this into Solr XML. I think this
    would give us a standard corpus to start with and would fairly well mimic
    some enterprise search/eDiscovery tasks pretty well.

    At any rate, as with any community, the proof is in people stepping up to
    help out. I like that so many people suggested we keep going. As for what
    to do, I think the options are pretty wide open and there is opportunity for
    people to define the project w/o any previous encumbrances.

    Some ideas that have been kicked around in the past:
    1. Creative-commons data set, judgments, queries
    2. Open Street Map (spatial search)
    3. Mail archives
    4. A crowd sourcing application. Given a set of documents and queries,
    have people provide judgments. Ideally, this runs in a web container and we
    could probably even find resources to host it here. Combining that with one
    of the items above, we would be on our way. App could also solicit queries
    by providing users open search box and opportunities to browse the data.

    I know much of this is simplistic, but it is a start.

    -Grant

    On Sep 13, 2010, at 9:04 PM, Dan Cardin wrote:

    Hello,

    I am new to ORP. I would like to contribute to the project. I do not have a
    lot of experience in this field of IR, crowd sourcing or AI. If someone
    could take the lead and set forward path I would be willing to contribute my
    skill set to ORP.

    How can I help? I have a lot of experience doing software development and
    system administration.

    Cheers,
    --Dan
    On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Omar Alonso wrote:

    I think ORP is a great candidate for crowdsourcing/human computation. In
    the last year or so there's been quite a bit of research and
    applications on
    this. See the page for the SIGIR workshop on using crowdsourcing for IR
    evaluation: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~cse2010/<http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/%7Ecse2010/>
    <http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/%7Ecse2010/>
    Omar

    --- On Mon, 9/13/10, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
    From: Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>
    Subject: Re: Whither ORP?
    To: openrelevance-dev@lucene.apache.org
    Date: Monday, September 13, 2010, 9:33 AM
    With the proper two-way open-source
    development process (taking and then giving) I think it can
    become an important part of open-IR technologies, just like
    what Lucene did to the search engines world. What ORP has to
    offer is of great interest to HebMorph, an open-source
    project of mine trying to decide on what is the best way to
    index and search Hebrew texts.

    To this end I decided to put some of the development
    efforts of the HebMorph project into making tools for the
    ORP. I have announced this before, but unfortunately I had
    to attend to more pressing tasks before I could complete
    this (and there was no response from the community
    anyway...). Just in case you're interested in seeing what I
    came up with so far: http://github.com/synhershko/Orev.

    IMHO, the ORP should stand by itself, and relate to
    Lucene/Solr only as its basis framework for these initial
    stages. Perhaps also try to attract more people who could
    find an interest in what it has to offer, so it can really
    start growing.

    Itamar.
    On 12/9/2010 1:29 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
    On Sep 11, 2010, at 8:51 PM, Robert Muir wrote:

    i propose we take what we have and import into
    lucene-java's benchmark
    contrib. it already has integration with
    wikipedia and reuters for perf
    purposes, and the quality package is actually
    there anyways. later, maybe
    more people have time and contrib/benchmark
    evolves naturally... e.g. to
    modules/benchmark with solr support as a first big
    step.
    Yeah, that seems reasonable. I have been
    thinking lately that it might be useful to pull our DocMaker
    stuff out separately from benchmark so that people have easy
    ways of generating content from things like Wikipedia, etc.
    Still, at the end of the day, I like what ORP _could_
    bring to the table and to some extent I think that is lost
    by folding it into Lucene benchmark.
    On Sep 11, 2010 7:33 PM, "Grant Ingersoll"<gsingers@apache.org>
    wrote:
    Seems ORP isn't really catching on with
    people. I know personally I don't
    have the time I had hoped to have to get it going.
    At the same time, I
    really think it could be a good project. We've got
    some tools put together,
    but we still haven't done much about the bigger
    goal of a "self contained"
    evaluation.
    Any thoughts on how we should proceed with
    ORP?
    -Grant

    --------------------------
    Grant Ingersoll
    http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
  • Robert Muir at Sep 14, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Dan Cardin wrote:

    Hello,

    This is a great start! I am interested in helping with the development of a
    crowd sourcing application. The next step would be creating a set of
    requirements for the web app. Would the ORP wiki be a good place to store
    the requirements?
    +1, don't hold back!

    --
    Robert Muir
    rcmuir@gmail.com
  • Simon Willnauer at Sep 14, 2010 at 3:04 pm
    On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
    On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Dan Cardin wrote:

    Hello,

    This is a great start! I am interested in helping with the development of a
    crowd sourcing application. The next step would be creating a set of
    requirements for the web app. Would the ORP wiki be a good place to store
    the requirements?
    +1, don't hold back!
    +1 - we need some action here! go for it!
    --
    Robert Muir
    rcmuir@gmail.com
  • Itamar Syn-Hershko at Sep 14, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    On 14/9/2010 4:22 PM, Dan Cardin wrote:
    Hello,

    This is a great start! I am interested in helping with the development of a
    crowd sourcing application. The next step would be creating a set of
    requirements for the web app. Would the ORP wiki be a good place to store
    the requirements?

    --Dan
    Uhm... this is actually what I just said I'm in the middle of doing. But
    perhaps doing some spec'ing through the Wiki would end in a better
    product, so why not.

    Please see
    http://search-lucene.com/m/pLgxg1HCef11&subj=OpenRelevance+Viewer+Orev+
    <http://search-lucene.com/m/pLgxg1HCef11&subj=OpenRelevance+Viewer+Orev+> to
    get an idea of what I did there. Let's branch the discussion from there
    to get this going in the right direction...

    As I wrote in the other message, this app can be accessed through
    http://github.com/synhershko/Orev (.NET / C# / NHibernate), and there's
    still some to do there.

    Itamar.
  • Grant Ingersoll at Sep 14, 2010 at 1:45 pm

    On Sep 13, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:

    With the proper two-way open-source development process (taking and then giving) I think it can become an important part of open-IR technologies, just like what Lucene did to the search engines world. What ORP has to offer is of great interest to HebMorph, an open-source project of mine trying to decide on what is the best way to index and search Hebrew texts.

    To this end I decided to put some of the development efforts of the HebMorph project into making tools for the ORP. I have announced this before, but unfortunately I had to attend to more pressing tasks before I could complete this (and there was no response from the community anyway...). Just in case you're interested in seeing what I came up with so far: http://github.com/synhershko/Orev.
    If you can, putting them up as a patch would be useful. That way, we can show some progress.
    IMHO, the ORP should stand by itself, and relate to Lucene/Solr only as its basis framework for these initial stages. Perhaps also try to attract more people who could find an interest in what it has to offer, so it can really start growing.

    Itamar.
    On 12/9/2010 1:29 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
    On Sep 11, 2010, at 8:51 PM, Robert Muir wrote:

    i propose we take what we have and import into lucene-java's benchmark
    contrib. it already has integration with wikipedia and reuters for perf
    purposes, and the quality package is actually there anyways. later, maybe
    more people have time and contrib/benchmark evolves naturally... e.g. to
    modules/benchmark with solr support as a first big step.
    Yeah, that seems reasonable. I have been thinking lately that it might be useful to pull our DocMaker stuff out separately from benchmark so that people have easy ways of generating content from things like Wikipedia, etc.

    Still, at the end of the day, I like what ORP _could_ bring to the table and to some extent I think that is lost by folding it into Lucene benchmark.

    On Sep 11, 2010 7:33 PM, "Grant Ingersoll"wrote:
    Seems ORP isn't really catching on with people. I know personally I don't
    have the time I had hoped to have to get it going. At the same time, I
    really think it could be a good project. We've got some tools put together,
    but we still haven't done much about the bigger goal of a "self contained"
    evaluation.
    Any thoughts on how we should proceed with ORP?

    -Grant
    --------------------------
    Grant Ingersoll
    http://lucenerevolution.org Apache Lucene/Solr Conference, Boston Oct 7-8
  • Itamar Syn-Hershko at Sep 14, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    On 14/9/2010 3:44 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
    If you can, putting them up as a patch would be useful. That way, we can show some progress.
    I will, but first it needs to be workable. It is 80% done, but still not
    that usable. I expect to be able to work on it again in a month or so.
    Or someone else could resume from where I stopped (in .NET, or port it
    to Java). I'm can share what is missing if anyone is interested.

    Itamar.
  • Dan Cardin at Sep 14, 2010 at 5:35 pm
    Hello,

    I will begin documenting some basic requirements for a crowd sourcing web
    app. I will use some of the work done by Itamar as a basis for the
    requirements.

    --Dan
    On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
    On 14/9/2010 3:44 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

    If you can, putting them up as a patch would be useful. That way, we can
    show some progress.
    I will, but first it needs to be workable. It is 80% done, but still not
    that usable. I expect to be able to work on it again in a month or so. Or
    someone else could resume from where I stopped (in .NET, or port it to
    Java). I'm can share what is missing if anyone is interested.

    Itamar.
  • Dan Cardin at Sep 14, 2010 at 7:35 pm
    I started the requirements...

    https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ORP/Open+Relevance+Viewer

    Is there anyone I can connect with to flush out the requirements?

    --Dan
    On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Dan Cardin wrote:

    Hello,

    I will begin documenting some basic requirements for a crowd sourcing web
    app. I will use some of the work done by Itamar as a basis for the
    requirements.

    --Dan
    On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
    On 14/9/2010 3:44 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

    If you can, putting them up as a patch would be useful. That way, we can
    show some progress.
    I will, but first it needs to be workable. It is 80% done, but still not
    that usable. I expect to be able to work on it again in a month or so. Or
    someone else could resume from where I stopped (in .NET, or port it to
    Java). I'm can share what is missing if anyone is interested.

    Itamar.
  • Itamar Syn-Hershko at Sep 14, 2010 at 7:49 pm
    If you mean you need help spec'ing this, my hands are on deck. Let me
    know what you're looking for aside from what I already described in my
    mail from July.

    Itamar.
    On 14/9/2010 9:34 PM, Dan Cardin wrote:
    I started the requirements...

    https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ORP/Open+Relevance+Viewer

    Is there anyone I can connect with to flush out the requirements?

    --Dan

    On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Dan Cardinwrote:

    Hello,

    I will begin documenting some basic requirements for a crowd sourcing web
    app. I will use some of the work done by Itamar as a basis for the
    requirements.

    --Dan

    On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershkowrote:

    On 14/9/2010 3:44 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

    If you can, putting them up as a patch would be useful. That way, we can
    show some progress.
    I will, but first it needs to be workable. It is 80% done, but still not
    that usable. I expect to be able to work on it again in a month or so. Or
    someone else could resume from where I stopped (in .NET, or port it to
    Java). I'm can share what is missing if anyone is interested.

    Itamar.
  • Mark Bennett at Sep 21, 2010 at 4:09 pm
    Folks,

    This is all great stuff. I too have some thoughts on things to contribute,
    but always a matter of time like everybody else.

    I have a preference overall for keeping ORP separate, I think that's likely
    to attract other engines.

    But the one advantage to Lucene/Solr is the increased visibility.

    I will commit to mentioning ORP when appropriate in talks that I give, web
    sites that I work on, and in blog postings every now and then. We do have
    some PR related things coming up.

    And welcome Tommaso!

    My particular interest is cross engine functionality. You'll find a wide
    difference of opinion about which things are a priority and why, but it
    comes down to "scratch your own itch". I care about cross engine adapters,
    so that's what I've been thinking about / prototyping.

    4 months ago I was working on relevancy judgments, so I posted about that,
    and tried to contribute some ideas. For legal reasons I wasn't able to
    contribute code at that time.

    Does anybody know if ORP is being represented at the upcoming Lucene
    conference? We'd volunteer to staff a booth, but our company wasn't
    planning to buy a booth as the prices were way too high for such a new show.

    Mark

    --
    Mark Bennett / New Idea Engineering, Inc. / mbennett@ideaeng.com
    Direct: 408-733-0387 / Main: 866-IDEA-ENG / Cell: 408-829-6513

    On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:

    If you mean you need help spec'ing this, my hands are on deck. Let me know
    what you're looking for aside from what I already described in my mail from
    July.

    Itamar.

    On 14/9/2010 9:34 PM, Dan Cardin wrote:

    I started the requirements...

    https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ORP/Open+Relevance+Viewer

    Is there anyone I can connect with to flush out the requirements?

    --Dan

    On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Dan Cardin<dcardin2007@gmail.com>
    wrote:


    Hello,

    I will begin documenting some basic requirements for a crowd sourcing web
    app. I will use some of the work done by Itamar as a basis for the
    requirements.

    --Dan

    On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko<itamar@code972.com
    wrote:
    On 14/9/2010 3:44 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:


    If you can, putting them up as a patch would be useful. That way, we
    can
    show some progress.

    I will, but first it needs to be workable. It is 80% done, but still not
    that usable. I expect to be able to work on it again in a month or so.
    Or
    someone else could resume from where I stopped (in .NET, or port it to
    Java). I'm can share what is missing if anyone is interested.

    Itamar.

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupopenrelevance-dev @
categorieslucene
postedSep 11, '10 at 11:33p
activeSep 21, '10 at 4:09p
posts17
users7
websitelucene.apache.org...

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2018 Grokbase