Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ctakes.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-Id: <6e55ab$8ll5jh@ironport10.mayo.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 22:16:58 +0000
From: "Masanz, James J." <Masanz.James@mayo.edu>
Subject: RE: lvg entries
In-reply-to: <E084D8EFE2B03A408B324458C5212E942435F73A@CHEXMBX3A.CHBOSTON.ORG>
To: "'dev@ctakes.apache.org'" <dev@ctakes.apache.org>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-language: en-US
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Accept-Language: en-US
Thread-topic: lvg entries
Thread-index: Ac9aWeh+8tnv4IK+T8igRnGzLt2WCAAMCprg
References: <E084D8EFE2B03A408B324458C5212E942435F0D8@CHEXMBX3A.CHBOSTON.ORG>
 <6e55ab$8ljq3o@ironport10.mayo.edu>
 <E084D8EFE2B03A408B324458C5212E942435F73A@CHEXMBX3A.CHBOSTON.ORG>


Before the switch to OpenNLP (which was done before the first opensource re=
lease of cTAKES), I believe the Lemma annotations were used by the POS tagg=
er and/or phrasal parser.  As far as I know, that was the original intentio=
n of the Lemmas. I believe they were turned off by default for some release=
s, until someone started to use them (or at least look at maybe using them)

That's all just from memory. We'd have to look through histories to see whe=
n things changed.

I don't think the Lemma annotations were ever used for dictionary lookup. T=
hat used the (single) output of the normalizer function of the LVG componen=
t

-----Original Message-----
From: Miller, Timothy [mailto:Timothy.Miller@childrens.harvard.edu]=20
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 3:34 PM
To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
Subject: Re: lvg entries

Thanks James. Does it ring a bell to you that the original intention was
something like query expansion for a dictionary lookup?
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 an=
notations 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]=20
> 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
>
>