Hi Alistair,
Nice to hear you still try out things with KIM – maybe we can
work closer on this.
Regarding your question – yes there is such functionality in KIM, but it is
not documented in the public release. Let us have a short assessment of the
state of affairs and get back to you.
Regarding your second question:
Yes, you can do that in several ways:
1. Remove the date/time from the configured allowed entity types in
KIMConstants – not so trivial as one needs to rebuild this class. We will
have a more flexible way in the next public release – i have added this into
our task tracking.
2. Edit the IE application so that:
a. Components recognizing dates are removed
b. Annotations of a particular type are removed unconditionally in the
end of the processing
This involves editing the IE application and this might be a bit painful for
you. An alternative way is to open main.jape and add a new phase where you
would do just filtering – this will not require editing of the .gapp.
Let us know how we can help you
And take care
borislav
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 12:40 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [KIM-discussion] Setting precendence in types of entities extracted
Hi,
Is it possible to set a precendence in the type that is assigned to exracted
entities where two or more trusted entites have the same alias. For example,
say I've extended the knowledge base to include names of my projects. and I
have a project called ABC. There might also be a company with the same alias
and from my experience occurrances of the alias ABC in the text will be
recognised as a company rather than a project. Can I tell KIM to favour
entities of type project over entities of type company? I know I can use the
ignore list but I was wondering if there is a way that is less explicit
about certain entities.
Similarly is there a way to say - don't recognise certain entities such as
dates or times?
Thanks,
Alistair
_____
From: Kings,NJ,Nick,CXR3 R
Sent: 01 February 2008 11:21
To: [email protected]
Cc: Duke,AK,Alistair,CXR3 R
Subject: Entities not be identified in text
All,
We're looking to apply KIM within a domain specific search engine. So, we
have added to the Proton ontology, adding an instance of an organisation
("IT Futures"), and then analysed text from a document.
Other entities have been identified in that text, so Gate/Annie is working,
but IT Futures has not extracted as important.
What steps should we now take? Do we have to edit the jape rules?
Thanks,
Nick
Nicholas J. Kings (Nick)
Next Generation Web Research
IT Futures Research Centre
BT Group Chief Technology Office
_____
British Telecommunications plc
Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
Registered in England no. 1800000
This electronic message contains information from British Telecommunications
plc which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to
be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not
the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have
received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or
email (to the numbers or address above) immediately.
Activity and use of the British Telecommunications plc email system is
monitored to secure its effective operation and for other lawful business
purposes. Communications using this system will also be monitored and may be
recorded to secure effective operation and for other lawful business
purposes.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1270 - Release Date: 10/02/2008
12:21
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.4/1275 - Release Date: 12/02/2008
15:20
_______________________________________________
NOTE: Please REPLY TO ALL to ensure that your reply reaches all members of this
mailing list.
KIM-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
http://ontotext.com/mailman/listinfo/kim-discussion_ontotext.com
