Michael Tanenblatt <slothrop@...> writes: > > I hope I get this right, as it's been a while since I've done this: > > Assume you have a token annotation that has a feature containing a POS tag as a string value, and that feature > is called "posTag". If you want to use that to limit your lookups, you would set the parameter > "TokenClassFeatureName" to "posTag" and then you would use the "IncludedTokenClasses" parameter to > list all of the values of that posTag feature that would indicate the token should be included in the lookup > (conversely, you could use the "ExcludedTokenClasses" to indicate those to ignore during lookup). > > Specifying the POS tag in the dictionary is a way to override the tagger, assuming your tagger doesn't > overwrite existing tags, that's all. ConceptMapper does not handle POS tags > in any special way, they are > just features, like any other feature. > > Does this make sense? > > On Mar 9, 2011, at 5:39 PM, Chris wrote: > > > The documentation for the ConceptMapper annotator discusses the possibility of > > limiting matches to specific parts of speech. If I understand correctly, > > by > > specifying a POS value in a ConceptMapper dictionary entry, I can filter > > matches to just those tokens that have been tagged with the specified POS > > value (as supplied, in my case, by running the OpenNLP POS Tagger before > > ConceptMapper). In practice, however, specifying POS attribute values for my > > dictionary entries does not appear to have the desired effect. > > > > Am I misunderstanding what the POS attribute does in ConceptMapper? > > Perhaps > > it is meant only to use in the "write-back" capabilities of the annotator > > to > > populate/overwrite a POS attribute in a matched token instead of acting as > > a > > filter? > > > > Any help is appreciated in better understanding what role POS plays in the > > execution of ConceptMapper. > > > > Thanks... > > > > That makes sense - thanks. I was hoping that it acted as an additional matching agent for variants - for example, being able to say that a match is only valid when the POS specified in the dictionary for a variant matched the pre-populated POS for the token annotation - but sounds like that was not how it was intended to be used.
Thanks for the help.
