ctakes-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Chen, Pei" <Pei.C...@childrens.harvard.edu>
Subject RE: CEM Template Question
Date Tue, 20 Aug 2013 00:40:33 GMT
That's a good point.
>From a pragmatic perspective, my vote would be to have the XMention.getBodyLocation()
return a AnatomicalSiteMention and similar for Severity etc.
If the relation was negated (there was no relation), then I think the CEM template filler
can just not create the relation.
For the extremely rare cases where they need to differentiate the null vs explicit negated
case, they can still iterate though the BinaryTextRelations because we didn't lose the data.

--Pei
________________________________________
From: Steven Bethard [steven.bethard@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 2:12 PM
To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
Subject: Re: CEM Template Question

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Pei Chen <chenpei@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi James/Steven,
> In the common type system/template fillers, do you recall why we stored the
> TextRelation instead of the resolved annotation?
>
> For example, in SignSymptomMention, getBodyLocation() returns
> LocationOfTextRelation.
> So in order to actually get the AnatomicalSiteMention, you would have to
> look inside LocationOfTextRelation arg1 or arg2.

Yeah, I really didn't like this either, but this is what's in the
actual Knowtator data. The one argument I've heard for it is that the
LocationOfTextRelation could be negated, even when the
AnatomicalSiteMention was not. I believe the idea would be to
distinguish between:

* The lesion was not on the left lung
* There was no lesion on the left lung

where the former asserts that there was a lesion but negates the
location, and the latter asserts the lack of a lesion. To support this
kind of thing, either getBodyLocation() has to return a
LocationOfTextRelation with an appropriate polarity attribute, of
there has to be some other mechanism for specifying the polarity, etc.
of the body location relation.

All that said, this was just got said to me once or twice. I have no
idea if the annotators even annotated this way or not. If they didn't,
I agree that the LocationOfTextRelation as the bodyLocation feels
super clunky and it would be great to fix that.

Steve

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Pei Chen <chenpei@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi James/Steven,
> In the common type system/template fillers, do you recall why we stored the
> TextRelation instead of the resolved annotation?
>
> For example, in SignSymptomMention, getBodyLocation() returns
> LocationOfTextRelation.
> So in order to actually get the AnatomicalSiteMention, you would have to
> look inside LocationOfTextRelation arg1 or arg2.
>
> I think it be more intuitive and simpler for consumers of the CEM's to just
> store the AnatomicalSiteMention?  Is there a use case I am missing where
> someone would want something different than the
> SignSymptomMention.getBodyLocation() other than the actual
> AnatomicalSiteMention?
>
> --Pei

Mime
View raw message