Thanks Koji for opening that, the dynamicField mapping is a commonly used
feature especially for named entities mapping.
Tommaso

2011/5/7 Koji Sekiguchi <k...@r.email.ne.jp>

> I've opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2503 .
>
> Koji
> --
> http://www.rondhuit.com/en/
>
> (11/05/06 20:15), Koji Sekiguchi wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'd like to use dynamicField in feature-field mapping of uima update
> > processor. It doesn't seem to be acceptable currently. Is it a bad idea
> > in terms of use of uima? If it is not so bad, I'd like to try a patch.
> >
> > Background:
> >
> > Because my uima annotator can generate many types of named entity from
> > a text, I don't want to implement so many types, but one type
> "NamedEntity":
> >
> > <typeSystemDescription>
> >    <types>
> >      <typeDescription>
> >        <name>com.rondhuit.uima.next.NamedEntity</name>
> >        <description/>
> >        <supertypeName>uima.tcas.Annotation</supertypeName>
> >        <features>
> >          <featureDescription>
> >            <name>name</name>
> >            <description/>
> >            <rangeTypeName>uima.cas.String</rangeTypeName>
> >          </featureDescription>
> >          <featureDescription>
> >            <name>entity</name>
> >            <description/>
> >            <rangeTypeName>uima.cas.String</rangeTypeName>
> >          </featureDescription>
> >        </features>
> >      </typeDescription>
> >    </types>
> > </typeSystemDescription>
> >
> > sample extracted named entities:
> >
> > name="PERSON", entity="Barack Obama"
> > name="TITLE", entity="the President"
> >
> > Now, I'd like to map these named entities to Solr fields like this:
> >
> > PERSON_S:"Barack Obama"
> > TITLE_S:"the President"
> >
> > Because the type of name (PERSON, TITLE, etc.) can be so many,
> > I'd like to use dynamicField *_s. And where * is replaced by the name
> > feature of NamedEntity.
> >
> > I think this is natural requirement from Solr view point, but I'm
> > not sure my uima annotator implementation is correct or not. In other
> > words, should I implement many types for each entity types?
> > (e.g. PersonEntity, TitleEntity, ... instead of NamedEntity)
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > Koji
>
>
>

Reply via email to