ctakes-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven Bethard <steven.beth...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: markable types
Date Sun, 11 May 2014 10:25:03 GMT
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