ctakes-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pei Chen <chen...@apache.org>
Subject Re: headword field in identifiedannotations
Date Fri, 10 Jun 2016 12:08:31 GMT
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

View raw message