ctakes-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Miller, Timothy" <Timothy.Mil...@childrens.harvard.edu>
Subject Re: lvg entries
Date Thu, 17 Apr 2014 21:33:27 GMT
Quick follow-up since I was interested. The current dependency parser
does have the option to use ctakes lemmas or do its own lemmatizing, but
that doesn't use the lemma field, it uses the normalizedForm field. I'm
not sure if that field is actually ever filled in -- on my example data
it is always null.

Tim

On 04/17/2014 01:57 PM, Masanz, James J. wrote:
> Offhand I recall at least one of the dependency parsers used the Lemma annotations at
one point.
> Not sure if still does.
>
> There is an option for turning off the posting of the lemmas to the cas.
>
> Hope that helps
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miller, Timothy [mailto:Timothy.Miller@childrens.harvard.edu] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 11:27 AM
> To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
> Subject: lvg entries
>
> The LVG annotator creates an enormous number of "lemmas" for every
> WordToken in the CAS, and I'm wondering what the original purpose was? I
> think this is probably a minor bottleneck for speed but mostly a pretty
> big space hog (at least 50% of the space of xmi files in my tests).
>
> As of right now I'm not sure if any downstream components are using
> these lemmas, and on a manual inspection the precision seems to be
> pretty abysmal (meaning most of them are nonsensical as lexical
> variants), so as I said, just wondering if we can revisit why cTAKES
> generates so many and whether that component can be optimized.
>
> Thanks
> Tim
>
>


Mime
View raw message