nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Payne <marka...@hotmail.com>
Subject Re: Text and metadata extraction processor
Date Fri, 01 Apr 2016 13:06:29 GMT
Dmitry,

I would be a bit concerned about providing options for filters that include and
exclude certain things. I believe that if you send a FlowFile to the Processor,
then the Processor should do its thing. If you want to filter out which FlowFiles
have their content extracted, for example, I would suggest using a Processor
like RouteOnAttribute to ensure that only the appropriate FlowFiles are processed
by the ExtractMediaMetadata processor.

This allows the metadata extraction processor to focus purely on extracting
metadata and doesn't have to deal with all of the logic of filtering things out. The logic
for filtering things out is almost guaranteed to grow much more complex as people
start to use this more and more. NiFi already provides several route-based processors
to allow for a great deal of flexibility with this type of logic (RouteOnAttribute, RouteOnContent,
ScanAttribute, ScanContent, etc.).

Thanks
-Mark



> On Apr 1, 2016, at 12:55 AM, Dmitry Goldenberg <dgoldenberg@hexastax.com> wrote:
> 
> Simon,
> 
> I believe we've moved on past the 'mode' option and have now switched to
> talking about how the include/exclude filters, for metadata and content, on
> the one hand side, and filename or MIME type based, on the other hand side,
> would drive whether meta, content, or both would get extracted.
> 
> For example, a user could configure the ExtractMediaAttributes processor to
> extract metadata for all image files (but not content), extract content
> only for plain text documents (but no metadata), or both meta and content
> for documents with an extension ".pqr", based on the filename.
> 
> Could you elaborate on your vision of how relationships could "drive" this
> type of functionality?  Joe has already built some of the filtering into
> the processor; I just suggested to extend that further, and we get all the
> bases covered.
> 
> I'm not sure I followed your comment on the extracted content being
> transferred into a new FlowFile.  My thoughts were that the extracted
> content would be inserted into a new, dedicated field, called for example,
> "text", on *the same* FlowFile.  I imagine that for a lot of use-cases,
> especially data ingestion into a search engine, the extracted attributes
> *and* the extracted text must travel together as part of the ingested
> document, with the original flowfile-content most likely getting dropped on
> the way into the index.
> 
> I guess an alternative could be to have an option to represent the
> extraction results as a new document, and an option to drop the original,
> and an option to copy the original's attributes onto the new doc. Seems
> rather complex.  I like the "in-place" extraction.
> 
> Could you also elaborate on how a controller service would handle OCR?
> When a document floats into ExtractMediaAttributes, assuming Tesseract is
> installed properly, Tika will already automatically fire off OCR.  Unless
> we turn that off and cause OCR to only be supported via this service.  I'm
> tempted to say why don't we just let Tika do its job for all cases, OCR
> included.  Caveat being that OCR is expensive and it would be nice to have
> ways of ensuring it has enough resources and doesn't bog the flow down.
> 
> For the PDF processor, I'm thinking, yes, PDFBox to break it up into pages
> and then apply Tika page by page, then aggregate the output together, with
> a configurable max of up to N pages per document to process (due to how
> slow OCR is).  I already have a prototype of this going, I'll file a JIRA
> ticket for this feature.
> 
> - Dmitry
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Simon Ball <sball@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> 
>> What I’m suggesting is a single processor for both, but instead of using a
>> mode property to determine which bits get extracted, you use the state of
>> the relations on the processor to configure which options tika uses and
>> using a single pass to actually parse metadata into attributes, and content
>> into a new flow file transfer into the parsed relation.
>> 
>> On the tesseract front, it may make sense to do this through a controller
>> service.
>> 
>> A PDF processor might be interesting. Are you thinking of something like
>> PDFBox, or tika again?
>> 
>> Simon
>> 
>> 
>>> On 1 Apr 2016, at 01:30, Dmitry Goldenberg <dgoldenberg@hexastax.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Simon,
>>> 
>>> Interesting commentary.  The issue that Joe and I have both looked at,
>> with
>>> the splitting of metadata and content extraction, is that if they're
>> split
>>> then the underlying Tika extraction has to process the file twice: once
>> to
>>> pull out the attributes and once to pull out the content.  Perhaps it may
>>> be good to add ExtractMetadata and ExtractTextContent in addition to
>>> ExtractMediaAttributes - ? Seems kind of an overkill but I may be wrong.
>>> 
>>> It seems prudent to provide one wholesome, out-of-the-box extractor
>>> processor with options to extract just metadata, just content, or both
>>> metadata and content.
>>> 
>>> I think what I'm hearing is that we need to allow for checking somewhere
>>> for whether text/content has already been extracted by the time we get to
>>> the ExtractMediaAttributes processor - ?  If that is the issue then I
>>> believe the user would use RouteOnAttribute and if the content is already
>>> filled in then they'd not route to ExtractMediaAttributes.
>>> 
>>> As far as the OCR.  Tika internally supports OCR by directing image files
>>> to Tesseract (if Tesseract is installed and configured properly).  We've
>>> started talking about how this could be reconciled in the
>>> ExtractMediaAttributes.
>>> 
>>> I think that once we have the basic ExtractMediaAttributes, we could add
>>> filters for what files to enable the OCR on, and we'd need to expose a
>> few
>>> config parameters specific to OCR, such as e.g. the location of the
>>> Tesseract installation and the maximum file size on which to attempt the
>>> OCR.  Perhaps there can also be a RunOCR processor which would be
>> dedicated
>>> to running OCR.  But since Tika already has OCR integrated we'd probably
>>> want to take care of that in the ExtractMediaAttributes configuration.
>>> 
>>> Additionally, I've proposed the idea of a ProcessPDF processor which
>> would
>>> ascertain whether a PDF is 'text' or 'scanned'. If scanned, we would
>> break
>>> it up into pages and run OCR on each page, then aggregate the extracted
>>> text.
>>> 
>>> - Dmitry
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Simon Ball <sball@hortonworks.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Just a thought…
>>>> 
>>>> To keep consistent with other Nifi Parse patterns, would it make sense
>> to
>>>> based the extraction of content on the presence of a relation. So your
>> tika
>>>> processor would have an original relation which would have meta data
>>>> attached as attributed, and an extracted relation which would have the
>>>> metadata and the processed content (text from OCRed image for example).
>>>> That way you can just use context.hasConnection(relationship) to
>> determine
>>>> whether to enable the tika content processing.
>>>> 
>>>> This seems more idiomatic than a mode flag.
>>>> 
>>>> Simon
>>>> 
>>>>> On 31 Mar 2016, at 19:48, Joe Skora <jskora@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dmitry,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think we're good.  I was confused because "XXX_METADATA MIMETYPE
>>>> FILTER"
>>>>> entries referred to some MIME type of the metadata, but you meant to
>> use
>>>>> the file's MIME type to select what files have metadata extracted.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry, about that, I think we are on the same page.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Joe
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Dmitry Goldenberg <
>>>>> dgoldenberg@hexastax.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Joe,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think if we have the filters in place then there's no need for
the
>>>> 'mode'
>>>>>> enum, as the filters themselves guide the processor in deciding
>> whether
>>>>>> metadata and/or content is extracted for a given input file.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Agreed on the handling of archives as a separate processor (template,
>>>> seems
>>>>>> like).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think it's easiest to do both metadata and/or content in one
>> processor
>>>>>> since it can tell Tika whether to extract metadata and/or content,
in
>>>> one
>>>>>> pass over the file bytes (as you pointed out).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Agreed on the exclusions trumping inclusions; I think that makes
>> sense.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We will only have a mimetype for the original flow file itself
so
>> I'm
>>>>>> not sure about the metadata mimetype filter.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm not sure where there might be an issue here. The metadata MIME
>> type
>>>>>> filter tells the processor for which MIME types to perform the
>> metadata
>>>>>> extraction.  For instance, extract metadata for images and videos,
>> only.
>>>>>> This could possibly be coupled with an exclusion filter for content
>> that
>>>>>> says, don't try to extract content from images and videos.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think with the six filters we get all the bases covered:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1. include metadata? --
>>>>>>    1. yes --
>>>>>>       1. determine the inclusion of metadata by filename pattern
>>>>>>       2. determine the inclusion of metadata by MIME type pattern
>>>>>>    2. no --
>>>>>>       1. determine the exclusion of metadata by filename pattern
>>>>>>       2. determine the exclusion of metadata by MIME type pattern
>>>>>>    2. include content? --
>>>>>>    1. yes --
>>>>>>       1. determine the inclusion of content by filename pattern
>>>>>>       2. determine the inclusion of content by MIME type pattern
>>>>>>    2. no --
>>>>>>       1. determine the exclusion of content by filename pattern
>>>>>>       2. determine the exclusion of content by MIME type pattern
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Does this work?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> - Dmitry
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Joe Skora <jskora@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dmitry,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Looking at this and your prior email.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1. I can see "extract metadata only" being as popular as "extract
>>>>>>> metadata and content".  It will all depend on the type of media,
for
>>>>>>> audio/video files adding the metadata to the flow file is enough
but
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> Word, PDF, etc. files the content may be wanted as well.
>>>>>>> 2. After thinking about it, I agree on an enum for mode.
>>>>>>> 3. I think any handling of zips or archive files should be handled
>> by
>>>>>>> another processor, that keeps this processor cleaner and improves
>> its
>>>>>>> ability for re-use.
>>>>>>> 4. I like the addition of exclude filters but I'm not sure about
>>>>>> adding
>>>>>>> content filters.  We will only have a mimetype for the original
flow
>>>>>>> file
>>>>>>> itself so I'm not sure about the metadata mimetype filter.  I
think
>>>>>>> content
>>>>>>> filtering may be best left for another downstream processor,
but it
>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>> be run faster if included here since the entire content will
be
>>>>>> handled
>>>>>>> during extraction.  If the content filters are implemented, for
>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>> they need to short circuit so that if the property is not set
or is
>>>>>> set
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> ".*" they don't evaluate the regex.
>>>>>>> 1. FILENAME_FILTER - selects flow files to process based on filename
>>>>>>>    matching regex. (exists)
>>>>>>>    2. MIMETYPE_FILTER - selects flow files to process based on
>>>>>> mimetype
>>>>>>>    matching regex. (exists)
>>>>>>>    3. FILENAME_EXCLUDE - excludes already selected flow files
from
>>>>>>>    processing based on filename matching regex. (new)
>>>>>>>    4. MIMETYPE_EXCLUDE - excludes already selected flow  files
from
>>>>>>>    processing based on mimetype matching regex. (new)
>>>>>>>    5. CONTENT_FILTER (optional) - selects flow files for output
>> based
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>    extracted content matching regex. (new)
>>>>>>>    6. CONTENT_EXCLUDE (optional) - excludes flow files from output
>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>    on extracted content matching regex. (new)
>>>>>>> 5. As indicated in the descriptions in #4, I don't think overlapping
>>>>>>> filters are an error, instead excludes should take precedence
over
>>>>>>> includes.  Then I can include a domain (like A*) but exclude
>> sub-sets
>>>>>>> (like
>>>>>>> AXYZ*).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'm sure there's something we missed, but I think that covers
most of
>>>> it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Dmitry Goldenberg <
>>>>>>> dgoldenberg@hexastax.com
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Joe,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Upon some thinking, I've started wondering whether all the
cases can
>>>> be
>>>>>>>> covered by the following filters:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> INCLUDE_CONTENT_FILENAME_FILTER - defines any patterns for
which
>> input
>>>>>>>> files get their content extracted, by file name
>>>>>>>> INCLUDE_METADATA_FILENAME_FILTER - defines any patterns for
which
>>>> input
>>>>>>>> files get their metadata extracted, by file name
>>>>>>>> INCLUDE_CONTENT_MIMETYPE_FILTER - defines any patterns for
which
>> input
>>>>>>>> files get their content extracted, by MIME type
>>>>>>>> INCLUDE_METADATA_MIMETYPE_FILTER - defines any patterns for
which
>>>> input
>>>>>>>> files get their metadata extracted, by MIME type
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> EXCLUDE_CONTENT_FILENAME_FILTER - defines any patterns for
which
>> input
>>>>>>>> files do NOT get their content extracted, by file name
>>>>>>>> EXCLUDE_METADATA_FILENAME_FILTER - defines any patterns for
which
>>>> input
>>>>>>>> files do NOT get their metadata extracted, by file name
>>>>>>>> EXCLUDE_CONTENT_MIMETYPE_FILTER - defines any patterns for
which
>> input
>>>>>>>> files do NOT get their content extracted, by MIME type
>>>>>>>> EXCLUDE_METADATA_MIMETYPE_FILTER - defines any patterns for
which
>>>> input
>>>>>>>> files do NOT get their metadata extracted, by MIME type
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I believe this gets all the bases covered. At processor init
time,
>> we
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> analyze the inclusions vs. exclusions; any overlap would
cause a
>>>>>>>> configuration error.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Let me know what you think, thanks.
>>>>>>>> - Dmitry
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Dmitry Goldenberg <
>>>>>>>> dgoldenberg@hexastax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I follow your reasoning on the semantics of "media".
 One might
>> argue
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> media files are a case of "document" or that a document
is a case
>> of
>>>>>>>>> "media".
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I'm not proposing filters for the mode of processing,
I'm
>> proposing a
>>>>>>>>> flag/enum with 3 values:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> A) extract metadata only;
>>>>>>>>> B) extract content only and place it into the flowfile
content;
>>>>>>>>> C) extract both metadata and content.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I think the default should be C, to extract both.  At
least in my
>>>>>>>>> experience most flows I've dealt with were interested
in extracting
>>>>>>> both.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I don't see how this mode would benefit from being expression
>> driven
>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I think we can add this enum mode and have the basic
use case
>>>>>> covered.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Additionally, further down the line, I was thinking we
could ponder
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> following (these have been essential in search engine
ingestion):
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 1. Extraction from compressed files/archives. How would
>>>>>>> UnpackContent
>>>>>>>>> work with ExtractMediaAttributes? Use-case being, we've
got a zip
>>>>>>>> file as
>>>>>>>>> input and want to crack it open and unravel it recursively;
it may
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> other, nested zips inside, along with other documents.
One way to
>>>>>>>> handle
>>>>>>>>> this is to treat the whole archive as one document and
merge all
>>>>>>>> attributes
>>>>>>>>> into one FlowFile.  The other way would be to treat each
archive
>>>>>>>> entry as
>>>>>>>>> its own flow file and keep a pointer back at the parent
archive.
>>>>>>> Yet
>>>>>>>>> another case is when the user might want to only extract
the
>>>>>> 'leaf'
>>>>>>>> entries
>>>>>>>>> and discard any parent container archives.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 2. Attachments and embeddings. Users may want to treat
any
>>>>>> attached
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> embedded files as separate flowfiles with perhaps pointers
back to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> parent files. This definitely warrants a filter. Oftentimes
Office
>>>>>>>>> documents have 'media' embeddings which are often not
of interest,
>>>>>>>>> especially for the case of ingesting into a search engine.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 3. PDF. For PDF's, we can do OCR. This is important for
the
>>>>>>>>> 'image'/scanned PDF's for which Tika won't extract text.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to understand how much of this is already supported
in
>> NiFi
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> if not I'd volunteer/collaborate to implement some of
this.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> - Dmitry
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Joe Skora <jskora@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Are you proposing separate filters that determine
the mode of
>>>>>>>> processing,
>>>>>>>>>> metadata/content/metadataAndContent?  I was thinking
of one
>>>>>> selection
>>>>>>>>>> filters and a static mode switch at the processor
instance level,
>> to
>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>> configuration more obvious such that one instance
of the processor
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> handle a known set of files regardless of the processing
mode.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I was thinking it would be useful for the mode switch
to support
>>>>>>>>>> expression
>>>>>>>>>> language, but I'm not sure about that since the selection
filters
>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> control what files get processed and it would be
harder to
>> configure
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> output flow file could vary between source format
and extracted
>>>>>> text.
>>>>>>>> So,
>>>>>>>>>> while it might be easy to do, and occasionally useful,
I think in
>>>>>>> normal
>>>>>>>>>> use I'd never have a varying mode but would more
likely have
>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>> processor instances with some routing or selection
going on
>> further
>>>>>>>>>> upstream.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I wrestled with the naming issue too.  I went with
>>>>>>>>>> "ExtractMediaAttributes"
>>>>>>>>>> over "ExtractDocumentAttributes" because it seemed
to represent
>> the
>>>>>>>>>> broader
>>>>>>>>>> context better.  In reality, media files and documents
and
>> documents
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> media files, but in the end it's all just semantics.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think I would change the NAR bundle name,
because I think
>>>>>>>>>> "nifi-media-nar" establishes it as a place to collect
this and
>> other
>>>>>>>> media
>>>>>>>>>> related processors in the future.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Dmitry Goldenberg
<
>>>>>>>>>> dgoldenberg@hexastax.com
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for all the details.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I wanted to propose that I do some of this work
so as to go
>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> full cycle of developing a processor and committing
it.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Once your changes are merged, I could extend
your
>>>>>>>> 'ExtractMediaMetadata'
>>>>>>>>>>> processor to handle the content, in addition
to the metadata.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> We could keep the FILENAME_FILTER and MIMETYPE_FILTER
but add a
>>>>>> mode
>>>>>>>>>> with 3
>>>>>>>>>>> values: metadataOnly, contentOnly, metadataAndContent.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> One thing that looks to be a design issue right
now is, your
>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> the 'nomenclature' seem media-oriented ("nifi-media-nar"
etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Would it make sense to have a generic processor
>>>>>>>>>>> ExtractDocumentMetadataAndContent?  Are there
enough specifics in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> image/video processing stuff to warrant that
to be a separate
>>>>>> layer;
>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps a subclass of ExtractDocumentMetadataAndContent
?  Might
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>> sense to rename nifi-media-nar into nifi-text-extract-nar
?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> - Dmitry
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Joe Skora <jskora@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I agree, Tika is pretty impressive.
 The original ticket,
>>>>>>>>>> NIFI-615
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-615>,
wanted
>>>>>>> extraction
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> metadata from WAV files, but as I got into
it I found Tika so
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>> effort it supports the 1,000+ file formats
Tika understands.
>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>> processor called "ExtractMediaMetadata",
you can pull that pull
>>>>>>>> PR-252
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/252>
from GitHub if you
>>>>>> want
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>>> it a try before it's merged.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Extraction content for those 1,000+ formats
would be a valuable
>>>>>>>>>> addition.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I see two possible approaches, 1) create
a new
>>>>>>> "ExtractMediaContent"
>>>>>>>>>>>> processor that would put the document content
in a new flow
>>>>>> file,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> 2)
>>>>>>>>>>>> extend the new "ExtractMediaMetadata" processor
so it can
>>>>>> extract
>>>>>>>>>>> metadata,
>>>>>>>>>>>> content, or both.  One combined processor
makes sense if it can
>>>>>>>>>> provide a
>>>>>>>>>>>> performance gain, otherwise two complementary
processors may
>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>> usage
>>>>>>>>>>>> easier.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm glad to help if you want to take a cut
at the processor
>>>>>>>> yourself,
>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> can take a crack at it myself if you'd prefer.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't hesitate to ask questions or share
comments and feedback
>>>>>>>>>> regarding
>>>>>>>>>>>> the ExtractMediaMetadata processor or the
addition of content
>>>>>>>>>> handling.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe Skora
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Dmitry
Goldenberg <
>>>>>>>>>>>> dgoldenberg@hexastax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Joe!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe S. - I'm definitely up for discussing
and contributing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> While building search-related ingestion
systems, I've seen
>>>>>>>> metadata
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> text extraction being done all the time;
it's always there and
>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be done for building search indexes.
 Beyond that,
>>>>>>> OCR-related
>>>>>>>>>>>>> capabilities are often requested, and
the advantage of Tika is
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> supports OCR out of the box.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Dmitry
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Joe
Witt <
>>>>>> joe.witt@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another community member (Joe Skora)
has a PR outstanding
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extracting metadata from media files
using Tika.  Perhaps it
>>>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense to broaden that to in general
extract what Tika can
>>>>>>> find.
>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps you can discuss your ideas
with Dmitry and see if
>>>>>>>>>> broadening
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a good idea or if rather domain
specific ones make more
>>>>>>>> sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This concept of extracting metadata
from documents/text
>>>>>> files,
>>>>>>>>>> etc..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using something like Tika is certainly
useful as that then
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> drive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nice automated routing decisions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:28 AM,
Dmitry Goldenberg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dgoldenberg@hexastax.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see that the ExtractText processor
extracts text using
>>>>>>>> regex.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about a processor that extracts
text and metadata
>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> incoming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files?  That doesn't seem to
exist - but perhaps I didn't
>>>>>>>> quite
>>>>>>>>>>> look
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right spots.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that doesn't exist I'd like
to implement and commit it,
>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tika.  There may also be a couple
of related processors to
>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Dmitry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message