Hi For me, the point of "having some recommendations for standards entity types like People name, etc..." raises the more fundamental question of the link between UIMA typesystems and ontologies as defined by the "Semantic Web" community. A lot of initiatives are moving forward very quickly on that domain like: - FOAF is more or less becoming a standard to define a Person and links between people - SKOS lets you define general knowledge representation More generally I think we should consider a way to make a bridge between the RDF / OWL way of defining complex ontologies and UIMA typesystems.
Olivier > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Pascal Coupet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Envoyé : mardi 13 mai 2008 19:36 > À : [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Objet : RE: Annotation Mapping Annotator > > This is indeed an important issue for an easy interoperability. > > However a simple mapping solves only a part of the issue. In > a lot of case, the mapping operation requires a lot of > intelligence. For a tagger by example, one will have 17 tags > related to Verbs and another 4: a simple mapping will not > work. For a name extractor, one will provide 2 fields, > firstName and lastName, and another one will have a middle > initial, a title and so on. So a lot of time you have to > modify the data themselves to move those from one typesystem > to another one and this require simple or not so simple code. > > What we do usually is to use a java scripting language to do > the mapping like beanshell. This is flexible and simple but > still powerful to use Java libs you may have to do complex > things. Maybe an idea could be to develop a mapping component > based on a java scripting language, configurable using XML > files as you suggest but also flexible to add > code in an easy way. > > A flexible mapping annotator will be very useful in the UIMA. > This is one way which is needed and pragmatic. Another > important and complementary way to tackle the issue is to > have some recommendations for standards entity types like > People names, dates, places and so on, like Dublin Core for > Metadata. If we do this, people providing annotators will be > able to add this type as output and will do the mapping > themselves to be "UIMA people compliant" by example. This can > be a degraded mode for them in regard of their standard > capabilities but this will be nice for fast prototyping. > > > > Pascal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Baessler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 5:09 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Annotation Mapping Annotator > > Is there some interest/need in the UIMA community to have an > annotation mapping annotator? > > I think some of you might know the issue that different UIMA > components work on different annotations and type systems. A > mapping annotator component could be used to translate the > annotations between these different requirements. E.g. we > have a tokenizer component at the beginning of the analysis > flow that produces example.Token annotations with a POS > feature set. Later in the flow have a component that needs > that information, but expects an example.Noun annotation. > Unfortunately there is no way to configure both components to > produce or read different annotation types, so in that case > we need a mapping. > > Tokenizer creates: > > example.Token (2,8) > POS = NN > > Mapping annotator translates this to: > > example.Noun (2,8) > posTag = NN > > > If there is a need for such a component we can reuse some of > the code developed for the UIMA SimpleServer. The > SimpleServer has a mapping syntax with additional filtering > as shown below. > > The mapping for the example above looks like: > > <type name="example.Token" outputTag="example.Noun"> > <filters> > <filter featurePath="POS" operator="=" value="NN" /> > </filters> > <outputs> > <output featurePath="pos" outputAttribute="posTag"/> > > </outputs> > </type> > > Any feedback/comments for such a component? > Are there any implementations available? > > -- Michael >
