Thanks a lot guys! That's what I needed. A big thanks for all.
Regards, Samik On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Jörn Kottmann <kottm...@gmail.com> wrote: > I now got it running with 1.5. > You need to do the following. > > Use our Parser to parse an input article. > > Use the TreebankNameFinder to add names to your parsed article (its now in > the trunk, see OPENNLP-407). > I used this command: > java -cp ... TreebankNameFinder -parse ner/date.bin ner/location.bin > ner/money.bin ner/organization.bin ner/percentage.bin ner/person.bin > ner/time.bin > > The names of models does matter. When you get the models from the website > rename them as I did. > > Now you need to run the TreebankLinker. It just needs the model directory > and you need to set WNSEARCHDIR > to your wordnet directory, e.g like this -DWNSEARCHDIR=wordnet/dict > > Now the TreebankLinker is ready to link mentions together. > > Let us know if you have issues to get this running. > > Hope this helps, > Jörn > > > On 12/1/11 9:34 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote: > >> Exactly, that is the place to look. >> >> I will give it a try as well, maybe we can write >> down a few steps to get it working with the current >> models. >> >> Jörn >> >> On 12/1/11 9:25 AM, Ben Podgursky wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I just started working with opennlp recently so I could be totally wrong >>> on >>> this, but I think the main method in TreebankLinker is a decent example >>> of >>> how to use coreference resolution. >>> >>> >>> Ben >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 4:19 AM, SAMIK CHAKRABORTY<sam...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your reply. I would love to use this. However, I am kind of >>>> stuck for lack of documentations around it. >>>> >>>> I am trying to use the code as is and do some basic analysis. However, >>>> the >>>> problem that I am facing (may be a newbie problem), is the entry point >>>> to >>>> the coref. >>>> >>>> i have seen that rest of the tools use kind of a common interface to >>>> interact with them (as documented). I am currently going with the >>>> assumption that it will work the same way as others (may be some >>>> changes). >>>> That said, if you could provide me with the entry point (like a class >>>> name), that would be of great help. >>>> >>>> I would love to help with this (as much as I can with my limited >>>> knowledge). >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Jörn Kottmann<kottm...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11/30/11 7:34 AM, SAMIK CHAKRABORTY wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> i was looking for the coreference resolution using OpenNLP and UIMA. I >>>>>> found out that this does not exist in the opennlp-uima code base. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also this jira issue does not have any pointers to it: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/OPENNLP-70<https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/OPENNLP-70> >>>>>> < >>>>>> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/OPENNLP-70<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENNLP-70> >>>> > >>>> >>>>> I found out that a lot of work has been done in the package >>>>>> opennlp.tools.coref. >>>>>> >>>>>> I want to understand a few things: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Is the code in opennlp.tools.coref package is ready for a wider >>>>>> consumption - other than few items like UIMA annotation creation and >>>>>> CAS >>>>>> services? >>>>>> 2. If the answer to the first query is "yes". Can I start with a >>>>>> simple >>>>>> use >>>>>> case like use the package to work on? >>>>>> 3. I didn't find any good entry point for the coref, like a JUnit test >>>>>> case >>>>>> to start with. If anyone can tell me an entry point and some pointers >>>>>> to >>>>>> start that would of great help. >>>>>> >>>>>> We currently cannot train the coref component. For this we would need >>>>> to have access to coref training data. Which I do not have. >>>>> That is the reason why it cannot be really maintained by the community. >>>>> >>>>> I have never really used it, but I would like to change that and also >>>>> >>>> work >>>> >>>>> on >>>>> the training part. I as well need the UIMA Integration. >>>>> >>>>> I assume the code is easy to get stable for production use, but it >>>>> might >>>>> need >>>>> a bit time. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway it would be really great if you could help us to improve the >>>>> situation. >>>>> >>>>> Jörn >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >
