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: markable types
Date Thu, 15 May 2014 15:19:38 GMT
+1 for a consolidated common type system...
I would go a step further- 'Markable' seems like a pretty general concept, maybe if folks
can think of other uses, we can subclass a Markable>CoRefMarkable?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Bethard [mailto:steven.bethard@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2014 8:12 AM
> To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
> Subject: Re: markable types
> 
> I don't think "not something anyone would want extracted" should be an
> argument against anything. We already have constituent and dependency
> parse trees in the type system, and those would fall under that category.
> 
> So +1 on markables in the type system. (In general, +1 on moving module-
> specific types to the standard type system. I'm not sure what the real benefit
> of splitting them out is...)
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Miller, Timothy
> <Timothy.Miller@childrens.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > What do people think about taking the "markable" types out of the
> > coreference project and adding them to the standard type system? This
> > is a pretty standard concept in coreference that doesn't really have a
> > great natural representation in the current type system -- it
> > encompasses IdentifiedAnnotations as well as pronouns ("It", "him",
> > "her") and some determiners ("this").
> >
> > The drawback I can see is that it is probably not something anyone
> > would want extracted -- ultimately you want the actual coref pairs or
> chains.
> > But it is useful for things like representing gold standard input or
> > splitting coreference resolution into separate markable recognition
> > and relation classification steps.
> >
> > Tim
> >
Mime
View raw message