Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ctakes.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1465506837.7561.52.camel@childrens.harvard.edu>
References: <1465506837.7561.52.camel@childrens.harvard.edu>
From: Pei Chen <chenpei@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 08:08:31 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPqz87rFy07cjaFpoO-1DCy2xf2Z4Pcdj1j8d46yekEisaudQg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: headword field in identifiedannotations
To: "dev@ctakes.apache.org" <dev@ctakes.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
archived-at: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 12:08:34 -0000

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
>