On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 11:09 +0100, Aliaksandr Autayeu wrote: > Since you're perhaps deeper in this that others you seem to be the > best > candidate to make a proposal, to check the state of the art algorithms > and > devise general enough interface for all or most of them. One way could > be > to see what the algorithms typically require, how diverse are sources > of > senses (WordNet alone has multiple different interfaces to access it), > which options do the algorithms take and start somewhere there to see > that > the interface is flexible enough to accommodate that diversity, has > ability > to do some built-in checks (such as detecting the case of algorithm > trained > on one source of senses working with another, or perhaps algorithm > relying > on a relation which is missing in the sense source) and be similar to > the > rest of OpenNLP. We might even end up with two interfaces (e.g. for > sense > provider and for WSD itself). > > What do you think about this way?
Please propose an interface. We will discuss it here on the list. Jörn
