ctakes-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Masanz, James J." <Masanz.Ja...@mayo.edu>
Subject RE: types for hybrid relations
Date Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:40:31 GMT

I like either B or Steve's suggestion of CollectionTextRelationEntityMentionRelation
If B, I agree with Steve about making the arguments Element and IdentifiedAnnotation. 

I like CollectionTextRelationEntityMentionRelation so that we can link a single Element with
all the mentions that were (will be) merged to create that Element.

-- James

________________________________________
From: Steven Bethard [steven.bethard@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 10:59 AM
To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
Subject: Re: types for hybrid relations

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Miller, Timothy
<Timothy.Miller@childrens.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Any votes for one or more of the following:
>
> A) Generalize BinaryTextRelation
> B) Create ElementMentionRelation (and then map coref chains to Elements)

I'd be okay with this one. Though Please just make the arguments
Element and IdentifiedAnnotation. The indirection through
RelationArgument is painful and unhelpful as far as I can tell.

> C) Create RelationMentionRelation
> D) I'm not doing anything until I clear this mountain of snow off of my car

Another possibility would be to create a relation type that exactly
matches what you need:

CollectionTextRelationEntityMentionRelation

Where the arguments are a CollectionTextRelation and a EntityMention.
That would have the advantage of removing all need for casting, since
the two arguments would have exactly the right types.

Steve

Mime
View raw message