Hi all,
what do you think about these per AE type system mappings?
Is it something which would improve the current situation ?
Any concerns?
Jörn
On 7/20/11 9:20 PM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
My point is that a user defines his own type system, and a mapping
which translates parts
of this type system to the annotator type system.
So in the sample above a user defines this type system:
Type: com.foo.Token
Feature: double tokenConfidence
Feature: String posTag
Feature: double posConfidence
The tokenizer also defined its type system:
Type: opennlp.Token
Feature: float confidence
And one more type system for the pos tagger:
Type: opennlp.POSToken
Feature: float confidence
Feature: String tag
The user defined AAE only knows the user type system and needs to
define "rules" which tell it how to transform opennlp.Token annotations
to com.foo.Token annotations, and then it needs a rule to transform
a com.foo.Token into an opennlp.POSToken, and back.
Sure this is also already possible today, by writing these type
mapping AEs,
as you would need to do for JCas. But I think having better framework
support
for this would make it easier.
