ctakes-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven Bethard <steven.beth...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: types for hybrid relations
Date Sat, 21 Feb 2015 09:44:48 GMT
I agree. I think intermediate types in this case would only have been
useful if UIMA supported type parameters (generics) in the type

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Miller, Timothy
<Timothy.Miller@childrens.harvard.edu> wrote:
> OK, I'm fine with CollectionTextRelationIdentifiedAnnotationRelation,
> but that probably doesn't inherit from either BinaryTextRelation or
> ElementRelation, and just from Relation itself. But that gets me back to
> the question of whether there is some conceptual benefit to having an
> intermediate "RelationMentionRelation" type, and now I'm thinking
> probably not, because Relation has all the fields it needs anyways. If
> we basically agree on this point then I'll just go ahead and make the type.
> Thanks
> Tim
> On 02/10/2015 11:42 PM, Masanz, James J. wrote:
>> I like either B or Steve's suggestion of CollectionTextRelationEntityMentionRelation
>> If B, I agree with Steve about making the arguments Element and IdentifiedAnnotation.
>> I like CollectionTextRelationEntityMentionRelation so that we can link a single Element
with all the mentions that were (will be) merged to create that Element.
>> -- James
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Steven Bethard [steven.bethard@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 10:59 AM
>> To: dev@ctakes.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: types for hybrid relations
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Miller, Timothy
>> <Timothy.Miller@childrens.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>> Any votes for one or more of the following:
>>> A) Generalize BinaryTextRelation
>>> B) Create ElementMentionRelation (and then map coref chains to Elements)
>> I'd be okay with this one. Though Please just make the arguments
>> Element and IdentifiedAnnotation. The indirection through
>> RelationArgument is painful and unhelpful as far as I can tell.
>>> C) Create RelationMentionRelation
>>> D) I'm not doing anything until I clear this mountain of snow off of my car
>> Another possibility would be to create a relation type that exactly
>> matches what you need:
>> CollectionTextRelationEntityMentionRelation
>> Where the arguments are a CollectionTextRelation and a EntityMention.
>> That would have the advantage of removing all need for casting, since
>> the two arguments would have exactly the right types.
>> Steve

View raw message