uima-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Kl├╝gl <pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de>
Subject Re: TextMarker language workthrough for text simplification example?
Date Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:56:45 GMT
Hi Fergal,

thanks for your interest, and to give TextMarker a try.

Interesting task. I haven't used TextMarker for this yet, the closest 
was maybe anonymization or a parser for nominal phrases.

The first problem I see has more to do with UIMA than with TextMarker. 
The processed text may not be changed by the analysis engines. 
Therefore, you have to store the changes that should be performed 
somehow as feature structures/annotations in the CAS. Some other 
analysis engine can then create a new view with the changed document.

I have to take a closer look at your example before I can give your some 
advice :-)



PS: I hope the state of the documention will improve soon.

On 19.11.2012 13:45, Monaghan, Fergal wrote:
> I've attached here the descriptor ("TextSimplifier.xml": configuration 
> for TextMarkerEngine), the test input data ("random01.txt.xmi": 
> Cleartk[OpenNLP] annotated), the rules file ("rules.tm": with 1 rule, 
> my first partial attempt at the text simplification process) and the 
> current output ("1.xmi": one additional tag has been created by the 
> rule), if this helps,
> Thanks again,
> Fergal.
> *From:*fergal.monaghan@sap.com
> *Sent:* 19 November 2012 09:56
> *To:* 'user@uima.apache.org'
> *Subject:* TextMarker language workthrough for text simplification 
> example?
> Hi all (and especially the good folks working on TextMarker in the 
> sandbox),
> 1. I am interested in implementing the type of text simplification 
> rules set out in this paper [1].
> 2. I would prefer to use TextMarker (and its language) natively in 
> UIMA than use the UIMA<->GATE integration and JAPE rules.
> 3. I have cloned TextMarker from the repo and have configured an 
> analysis engine descriptor to run TextMarkerEngine using custom rules.
> 4. I have switched off the TextMarkerEngine seed annotations as I am 
> testing on pre-processed XMI files that have been pre-annotated with 
> the Cleartk type systems (up to and including TreebankNodes... OpenNLP 
> used under the hood if that's of interest).
> 5. Things are building and unit tests running fine on simple rules. 
> Yay! Good work guys :)
> Now I am focussing on customising the rules for the text 
> simplification application. I have been studying the TextMarker 
> language documentation here [2] as well as TextMarker's unit tests in 
> the sandbox to get things working so far, but am now asking for your 
> help to complete one of the example rules I'd like to implement. This 
> is the example from [1]:
> Input (original):
> "The jury also commented on the Fulton court, which has been under 
> fire for its practices in the appointment of appraisers, guardians and 
> administrators."
> Output (simplified):
> "The jury also commented on the Fulton court." "The Fulton court has 
> been under fire for its practices in the appointment of appraisers, 
> guardians and administrators."
> Rule I want to implement in the TextMarker language:
> V W:NP_ant, Rel Clause(X:Rel Pr Y), Z. ->            V W Z. W Y.
> which can be interpreted as "If a sentence consists of any text V 
> followed by the antecedent noun phrase W, a relative clause 
> (consisting of a relative pronoun X and a sequence of words Y) 
> enclosed in commas and a sequence of words Z, then the embedded clause 
> can be made into a new sentence with W as the subject NP".
> So far I have gotten to this in the TextMarker language (please see 
> below the contents of my rules.tm file that I'm running through 
> TextMarker). Please note this itself is not an attempt at the final 
> complete rule, but some intermediate attempt that is the furthest I've 
> been able to get on my own which still passes unit tests:
> ===============================================
> PACKAGE org.cleartk.syntax.constituent.type;
> (TreebankNode{FEATURE("nodeType","NP")} 
> TerminalTreebankNode{FEATURE("nodeType",",")} 
> TerminalTreebankNode{FEATURE("nodeType","WDT")} 
> TreebankNode{FEATURE("nodeType","S")}){->MARK(com.sap.research.bd.ta.AdjectivalOrRelativeClause)};
> ===============================================
> Can someone complete this rule to get me closer to the example above? 
> I lack understanding of the TextMarker language, but I feel that if I 
> had an example of this slightly more complex rule than what is present 
> in the unit tests/documentation, that I would be able to work it out 
> for the rest of the rules I want to implement.
> Thanks very much for reading, and for any help you can provide,
> *Fergal Monaghan*
> B.E., Ph.D.   |   Research Specialist   |   SAP Research
> *SAP (UK) Limited*   |   The Concourse   |   Queen's Road   |   
> Belfast BT3 9DT
> T: +44 (0)28 9078-5705   |   M:   +44 (0)79 2076-6281   | F:   +44 
> (0)28 9078-5777
> mailto:fergal.monaghan@sap.com | www.sap.com/research 
> <http://www.sap.com/research>__
> [1] http://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/advaith/pages/LEC02.pdf 
> <http://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/advaith/pages/LEC02.pdf>
> [2] http://tmwiki.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/Wiki.jsp?page=Introduction

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