[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1488?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12719109#action_12719109
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1488:
--------------------------------------------
ICUAnalyzer looks very useful! Good work Robert. (And, thanks!).
Do you think this'll be ready to go in time for 2.9 (which we are
trying to wrap up soonish)?
It seems like this absorbs the functionality of many of Lucene's
current analyzers. EG you mentioned ArabicAnalyzer already. What
other analyzers (eg in contrib/analyzers/*) would you say are
logically subsumed by this?
Also, this seems quite different from StandardAnalyzer, in that it
focuses entirely on doing "good" tokenization, by relying on the
Unicode standard (defaults) instead of fixed char ranges in
StandardAnalyzer. So it fixes many bugs in how StandardAnalyzer
tokenizes, especially on non-European languages.
Also, StandardAnalyzer goes beyond making the initial tokens: it also
tries to label things as acronym, host name, number, etc.; tries to
filter out stop words.
I assume ICUCaseFoldingFilter logically subsumes LowercaseFilter?
bq. Especially tricky is the complexity-performance-maintenance balance, i.e.
the case-folding filter could be a lot faster, but then it would have to be
updated when a new unicode version is released.
I think it's fine to worry about this later. Correctness is more
important than performance at this point.
> issues with standardanalyzer on multilingual text
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1488
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1488
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Wish
> Components: contrib/analyzers
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: ICUAnalyzer.patch, LUCENE-1488.patch, LUCENE-1488.txt
>
>
> The standard analyzer in lucene is not exactly unicode-friendly with regards
> to breaking text into words, especially with respect to non-alphabetic
> scripts. This is because it is unaware of unicode bounds properties.
> I actually couldn't figure out how the Thai analyzer could possibly be
> working until i looked at the jflex rules and saw that codepoint range for
> most of the Thai block was added to the alphanum specification. defining the
> exact codepoint ranges like this for every language could help with the
> problem but you'd basically be reimplementing the bounds properties already
> stated in the unicode standard.
> in general it looks like this kind of behavior is bad in lucene for even
> latin, for instance, the analyzer will break words around accent marks in
> decomposed form. While most latin letter + accent combinations have composed
> forms in unicode, some do not. (this is also an issue for asciifoldingfilter
> i suppose).
> I've got a partially tested standardanalyzer that uses icu Rule-based
> BreakIterator instead of jflex. Using this method you can define word
> boundaries according to the unicode bounds properties. After getting it into
> some good shape i'd be happy to contribute it for contrib but I wonder if
> theres a better solution so that out of box lucene will be more friendly to
> non-ASCII text. Unfortunately it seems jflex does not support use of these
> properties such as [\p{Word_Break = Extend}] so this is probably the major
> barrier.
> Thanks,
> Robert
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
