On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Wu, Stephen T., Ph.D. <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, Steve is right -- we did this to mirror the Knowtator annotation > schema. Removing the relation between them would make it difficult to > find and account for relation attributes. > > I think there's a pretty convincing argument for relations being somewhat > "supporting" annotations. Coreference and all other relations would > essentially help you fill in your attribute values (e.g., > mention.setbodyLocation()). I think this ends up being cleaner overall, > since an end user of the CAS then has the ability to look at Mentions > without looking at Relations. > > So I think I'm a +1. There are only a few relation-valued attributes for > each mention, so I expect changes would be fairly local within the > relation-extractor project. > > What do you think about the refsem types -- e.g., should the attributes > within DiseaseDisorder changed, similar to how we plan to change > DiseaseDisorderMention?
I would say yes. I think we want these types to parallel each other as much as possible. Steve > > stephen > > > On 8/19/13 7:40 PM, "Chen, Pei" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>That's a good point. > >From a pragmatic perspective, my vote would be to have the >>XMention.getBodyLocation() return a AnatomicalSiteMention and similar for >>Severity etc. >>If the relation was negated (there was no relation), then I think the CEM >>template filler can just not create the relation. >>For the extremely rare cases where they need to differentiate the null vs >>explicit negated case, they can still iterate though the >>BinaryTextRelations because we didn't lose the data. >> >>--Pei >>________________________________________ >>From: Steven Bethard [[email protected]] >>Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 2:12 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: CEM Template Question >> >>On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Pei Chen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi James/Steven, >>> In the common type system/template fillers, do you recall why we stored >>>the >>> TextRelation instead of the resolved annotation? >>> >>> For example, in SignSymptomMention, getBodyLocation() returns >>> LocationOfTextRelation. >>> So in order to actually get the AnatomicalSiteMention, you would have to >>> look inside LocationOfTextRelation arg1 or arg2. >> >>Yeah, I really didn't like this either, but this is what's in the >>actual Knowtator data. The one argument I've heard for it is that the >>LocationOfTextRelation could be negated, even when the >>AnatomicalSiteMention was not. I believe the idea would be to >>distinguish between: >> >>* The lesion was not on the left lung >>* There was no lesion on the left lung >> >>where the former asserts that there was a lesion but negates the >>location, and the latter asserts the lack of a lesion. To support this >>kind of thing, either getBodyLocation() has to return a >>LocationOfTextRelation with an appropriate polarity attribute, of >>there has to be some other mechanism for specifying the polarity, etc. >>of the body location relation. >> >>All that said, this was just got said to me once or twice. I have no >>idea if the annotators even annotated this way or not. If they didn't, >>I agree that the LocationOfTextRelation as the bodyLocation feels >>super clunky and it would be great to fix that. >> >>Steve >> >>On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Pei Chen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi James/Steven, >>> In the common type system/template fillers, do you recall why we stored >>>the >>> TextRelation instead of the resolved annotation? >>> >>> For example, in SignSymptomMention, getBodyLocation() returns >>> LocationOfTextRelation. >>> So in order to actually get the AnatomicalSiteMention, you would have to >>> look inside LocationOfTextRelation arg1 or arg2. >>> >>> I think it be more intuitive and simpler for consumers of the CEM's to >>>just >>> store the AnatomicalSiteMention? Is there a use case I am missing where >>> someone would want something different than the >>> SignSymptomMention.getBodyLocation() other than the actual >>> AnatomicalSiteMention? >>> >>> --Pei >
