On Jun 5, 2008, at 3:09 PM, Karl Wettin wrote:
Any more thoughts on this subject? I'll start coding this tuesday.
+1. Much easier to have thoughts on a patch.
karl
24 maj 2008 kl. 18.10 skrev Karl Wettin:
24 maj 2008 kl. 13.13 skrev Grant Ingersoll:
These are interesting. Perhaps you want to commit LUCENE-725?
If I end up using it for this, then I will. Never tried it out and
there are no test cases so I have no clue to how well it works. Nor
are there any demonstrations of the features in the patch, but I
suppose our demo could be used to produce that.
I'll train it with the last few paragraphs on a per-author basis
too see how well it works.
We might want to wash out stuff like "24 maj 2008 kl. 13.13 skrev
Grant Ingersoll" too. That should not be to hard to figure out
using the headers if the data is stored in a way that allows for
navigation in the thread.
But I'm honestly not sure if this is preemptive overkill solutions.
Perhaps algorithms automatically penalise unrelated text when given
enough semiotic data. Perhaps attribute selection does the same job
in a shorter time.
I was wondering whether we should consider asking Lucene to put up
an Analyzer only jar (i.e. a separate jar that combiners the
Analyzer/TokenStream definitions with the contrib Analyzers
package.) Of course, we may have uses for the rest of Lucene as
well, so maybe not.
To me that just sounds like more work for both projects.
I'd be great if we managed to put all future text analysis
improvements as patches in Lucene rather than Mahout, but in the
long run I think we'll be branching quite a bit of the Lucene
analysis code to avoid spending time writing backwards compatible
code to support Lucene- rather than Mahout users. See LUCENE-889.
karl
--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com
