, April 17, 2014 12:52 PM
To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
Subject: RE: lvg entries
Those variants are not used by the dictionary lookup. I did look at them
to see if it was worthwhile for the new dictionary, but they are all over
the place so I passed.
From
searching dictionary entries (in addition to searching
dictionary entries for nodes)
-Original Message-
From: Miller, Timothy [mailto:timothy.mil...@childrens.harvard.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:33 PM
To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
Subject: Re: lvg entries
Quick follow-up since
what the intent there was.
-Original Message-
From: Miller, Timothy [mailto:timothy.mil...@childrens.harvard.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 11:16 AM
To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
Subject: Re: lvg entries
Hmm... I don't see normalizedForm filled in. I see LVG filling in
canonicalForm
, would be used when searching dictionary entries (in addition to
searching dictionary entries for nodes)
-Original Message-
From: Miller, Timothy [mailto:timothy.mil...@childrens.harvard.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:33 PM
To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
Subject: Re: lvg entries
Quick
+1 false
-Original Message-
From: Miller, Timothy [mailto:timothy.mil...@childrens.harvard.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 2:54 PM
To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
Subject: Re: lvg entries
Thanks for tracking that down Andy.
I am making a pass at UimaFit-izing the configuration parameters
Tim, this is a very interesting observation. Could you please send a few
examples of what LVG generates? Both sensical and non :)
Dima
On Apr 17, 2014, at 11:28, Miller, Timothy
timothy.mil...@childrens.harvard.edu wrote:
The LVG annotator creates an enormous number of lemmas for every
Sure, just as an example, I gave it a note with about 1000 words. It
generates 11500 NonEmptyFSList elements (each is basically one lexical
variant).
For the word symptomatic, these are the first 10 of 20 lexical variants:
Symptomaticer/JJ
Symptomaticer/RB
Symptomaticed/VB
Symptomaticcing/VB
I don’t know of any applications within cTAKES that make use of this… The
reverse (mapping from these “variants” to the normal form) may be useful though.
Dima
On Apr 17, 2014, at 11:50, Miller, Timothy
timothy.mil...@childrens.harvard.edu wrote:
Sure, just as an example, I gave it a note
17, 2014 1:25 PM
To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
Subject: Re: lvg entries
Pei and I had a similar discussion in person -- mapping from lexical
variants to a stem might be useful. Pei also mentioned that one intended
use might have been searching the dictionary with lexical variants, but
I don't think
Offhand I recall at least one of the dependency parsers used the Lemma
annotations at one point.
Not sure if still does.
There is an option for turning off the posting of the lemmas to the cas.
Hope that helps
-Original Message-
From: Miller, Timothy
Thanks James. Does it ring a bell to you that the original intention was
something like query expansion for a dictionary lookup?
Tim
On 04/17/2014 01:57 PM, Masanz, James J. wrote:
Offhand I recall at least one of the dependency parsers used the Lemma
annotations at one point.
Not sure if
of the normalizer function of the LVG component
-Original Message-
From: Miller, Timothy [mailto:timothy.mil...@childrens.harvard.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 3:34 PM
To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
Subject: Re: lvg entries
Thanks James. Does it ring a bell to you that the original intention
to
searching dictionary entries for nodes)
-Original Message-
From: Miller, Timothy [mailto:timothy.mil...@childrens.harvard.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:33 PM
To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
Subject: Re: lvg entries
Quick follow-up since I was interested. The current dependency
13 matches
Mail list logo
