ctakes-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Masanz <masanz.ja...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: headword field in identifiedannotations
Date Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:22:12 GMT
I've forgotten most of what I knew about ConllDependencyNode - do you
need headNode
to have access to attributes specific to the ConllDependencyNode type or
would a BaseToken suffice, to generalize the solution?
If a ConllDependencyNode is what's needed, then what you proposed sounds
good to me.

-- James

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Pei Chen <chenpei@apache.org> wrote:

> I don't see any issues with adding the additional optional
> attribute... I think we already did the same for other items like
> relations for similar reasons.  The only catch is probably that the
> dependency will need the dictionary lookup to be run first (assuming
> that the logic will be added to the DP to iterate through all NE's in
> the CAS) if they want to use that attribute.
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Miller, Timothy
> <Timothy.Miller@childrens.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > How do people feel about modifying the typesystem? I'm finding that
> > grabbing the dependency headword is something very useful for feature
> > extraction. But it is a bottleneck if every feature extractor that uses
> > it has to recompute it. So I propose adding a field to the
> > IdentifiedAnnotation type of "headNode" with type ConllDependencyNode.
> >
> > Any thoughts or good reasons to avoid this?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Tim
> >

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message