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 Fri, 20 Feb 2015 20:04:40 GMT
I agree.

-----Original Message-----
From: Miller, Timothy [mailto:Timothy.Miller@childrens.harvard.edu] 
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 1:38 PM
To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
Subject: Re: types for hybrid relations

OK, I'm fine with CollectionTextRelationIdentifiedAnnotationRelation,
but that probably doesn't inherit from either BinaryTextRelation or
ElementRelation, and just from Relation itself. But that gets me back to
the question of whether there is some conceptual benefit to having an
intermediate "RelationMentionRelation" type, and now I'm thinking
probably not, because Relation has all the fields it needs anyways. If
we basically agree on this point then I'll just go ahead and make the type.
Thanks
Tim



On 02/10/2015 11:42 PM, Masanz, James J. wrote:
> 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