nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitry Goldenberg <dgoldenb...@hexastax.com>
Subject Re: Text and metadata extraction processor
Date Fri, 01 Apr 2016 14:10:50 GMT
Hi Mark,

That is a good point.  It also has crossed my mind.  AFAIK,
ExtractMediaAttributes already has a couple of similar filters on it; Joe
S., please correct me if I'm wrong.  I merely suggested that we extend
these filters.

I'd have to agree with your points, Mark, that it's cleaner to keep the
conditionals separate, on RouteOnAttribute and the like.

If that is the consensus then I believe we're back to the idea of a "mode"
configuration on ExtractMediaAttributes, with 3 values: a)
extractMetadataOnly, b) extractContentOnly, c) extractMetadataAndContent.
As an alternative we have also considered rolling 3 separate processors:
ExtractMetadata, ExtractContent, and ExtractMetadataAndContent.  Given that
ExtractMediaAttributes already exists, I think it may be easiest to roll
with the new "mode" config parameter.

One question then is also, what to do with the filters that are already on
ExtractMediaAttributes - ?  Should they still be there?

BTW, I've filed the following JIRA tickets related to the topics we've been
discussing:

Extract metadata and text - NIFI1717
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1717>
PerformOCR - NIFI1718 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1718>
ProcessPDF - NIFI1719 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1719>

I'll propagate more info into those as we discuss things more.

Mark, could you take a look at: NIFI1716
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1716>.  This is a separate
topic so we could create a separate discussion thread for the CSV splitter.

Thanks,
- Dmitry


On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Mark Payne <markap14@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message