+1 for a consolidated common type system... I would go a step further- 'Markable' seems like a pretty general concept, maybe if folks can think of other uses, we can subclass a Markable>CoRefMarkable?
> -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Bethard [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2014 8:12 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: markable types > > I don't think "not something anyone would want extracted" should be an > argument against anything. We already have constituent and dependency > parse trees in the type system, and those would fall under that category. > > So +1 on markables in the type system. (In general, +1 on moving module- > specific types to the standard type system. I'm not sure what the real benefit > of splitting them out is...) > > Steve > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Miller, Timothy > <[email protected]> wrote: > > What do people think about taking the "markable" types out of the > > coreference project and adding them to the standard type system? This > > is a pretty standard concept in coreference that doesn't really have a > > great natural representation in the current type system -- it > > encompasses IdentifiedAnnotations as well as pronouns ("It", "him", > > "her") and some determiners ("this"). > > > > The drawback I can see is that it is probably not something anyone > > would want extracted -- ultimately you want the actual coref pairs or > chains. > > But it is useful for things like representing gold standard input or > > splitting coreference resolution into separate markable recognition > > and relation classification steps. > > > > Tim > >
