Difference between revisions of "Java port of Apertium runtime"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A "Java port" of Apertium would enable use on |
A "Java port" of Apertium would enable use on |
||
| − | + | * Windows, |
|
| − | + | * J2ME/Android phones, |
|
| − | + | * web pages (applets), |
|
| − | + | * desktop application, |
|
| − | + | * Java server applications. |
|
The last 2 is relevant as, for example an OpenOffice.org plugin should be platform independent to be maintainable. |
The last 2 is relevant as, for example an OpenOffice.org plugin should be platform independent to be maintainable. |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
Af I see it: |
Af I see it: |
||
| − | + | * Interchunk/postchunk I could do in very short time, so I could mentor this |
|
| − | + | * Tagger: The C++ code is there and some has already been ported to Java (lttoolbox parts), probably someone could port it relatively easy, if someone understanding tagger would co-mentor that part. I'd say its not necessary to port tagger training, just the core (bigram) tagging during translation. |
|
| − | + | * Piping/modes isnt too hard. |
|
| − | + | * Format handling: I'd say that it would be OK just to be able to handle normal text. |
|
| − | --[[ |
+ | --[[User:Jacob Nordfalk|Jacob Nordfalk]] 08:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:33, 14 March 2010
A "Java port" of Apertium would enable use on
- Windows,
- J2ME/Android phones,
- web pages (applets),
- desktop application,
- Java server applications.
The last 2 is relevant as, for example an OpenOffice.org plugin should be platform independent to be maintainable.
AFAIK we havent seen anyone embedding Apertium in a desktop application. Currently Apertium is usable in a local subdir but installation isnt trivial to an end user, but note that 'embedding' something isnt the same as 'using a locally installed version'.
Having a packaged easy-to-use version of Apertium ready for embedding MT in a larger program would be very cool. Ideally should a self-contained Apertium JAR file, only dependent on JRE and/or a JAR file per language pair.
An "embedding" approach is to use a client stub to an Apertium web service, but there can be reasons why people prefers to have things installed locally (we don't need to repeat them here).
Missing for a complete port of apertium in java is tagger, piping/modes, interchunk/postchunk and format handling.
Af I see it:
- Interchunk/postchunk I could do in very short time, so I could mentor this
- Tagger: The C++ code is there and some has already been ported to Java (lttoolbox parts), probably someone could port it relatively easy, if someone understanding tagger would co-mentor that part. I'd say its not necessary to port tagger training, just the core (bigram) tagging during translation.
- Piping/modes isnt too hard.
- Format handling: I'd say that it would be OK just to be able to handle normal text.
--Jacob Nordfalk 08:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
