The option Sean mentioned of writing your own custom consumer (without the UIMA id that is causing your issues) should meet these needs I believe.
Britt Fitch
Wired Informatics
265 Franklin St Ste 1702
Boston, MA 02110
http://wiredinformatics.com
[email protected]
On Oct 7, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Kim Ebert <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> Well of course that makes plenty of sense. Testing different cTakes
> configurations you would expect different output. In our testing we've
> found several cases where running with the same configuration outputs
> different data under different moons. Having consistent results helps us
> know if we've made improvements to our quality or not. Having output
> that is in a predictable order makes checking to see if there are
> differences much cheaper when you are dealing with larger data sets.
>
> Kim Ebert
> 1.801.669.7342
> Perfect Search Corp
> http://www.perfectsearchcorp.com/
>
> On 10/07/2014 08:50 AM, Finan, Sean wrote:
>> Hi Kim,
>>
>> One might want compare the Sentence detector that uses end of line
>> characters as sentence splitters with one that does not. Such a change in
>> sentence splitting would not only effect the sentence type discoveries but
>> also practically every type that follows.
>>
>> Another might want to compare a note with "skin cancer" vs. one in which you
>> replace "skin cancer" with "melanoma" just to see what the CUI differences
>> might be. There are changes in two words vs. one, 11 characters vs. 8, a
>> removed adjective(?), and of course changes in CUIs.
>>
>> Of course, if you are just running notes on a new moon and then again on a
>> full moon ...
>>
>> Sean
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kim Ebert [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:41 AM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: cTakes output predictability
>>
>> Sean,
>>
>> "...being different because of a possibly intentional difference."
>>
>> I would like you to elaborate a bit on the what would be intentionally
>> different between the processing of the same document multiple times. It
>> would help my understanding of cTakes.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Kim Ebert
>> 1.801.669.7342
>> Perfect Search Corp
>> http://www.perfectsearchcorp.com/
>>
>> On 10/07/2014 07:30 AM, Finan, Sean wrote:
>>> Steve Bethard wrote:
>>>> I spent some time writing a script for diff-ing CASes
>>> I urge anyone interested in comparing cTakes CASes / output to use this
>>> type of approach. Comparison of program output is a post-process task, and
>>> unless absolutely necessary code to juggle data and metadata belongs there.
>>> Attempts to force every module past, present and Future to abide by fixed
>>> orderings, enumerations etc. is not as simple a task as one might initially
>>> think - especially if third-party libraries are involved. I won't get into
>>> problems associated with why one is comparing output (swapped module?) and
>>> IDs, orders etc. being different because of a possibly intentional
>>> difference.
>>>
>>> In addition to or instead of creating a post-processing script, one could
>>> write a new "cas-consumer" that writes output in a desired format - but
>>> this should not require changes to engines.
>>>
>>> "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
>>>
>>> Sean
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Steven Bethard [mailto:[email protected]]
>>> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 11:23 PM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: Re: cTakes output predictability
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Bruce Tietjen
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Since I started working with cTakes some time ago, I have found it
>>>> difficult to compare the output between subsequent runs on the same
>>>> files because annotations are often assigned different IDs, are
>>>> listed in different order, etc.
>>> At one point, I spent some time writing a script for diff-ing CASes
>>> that intended to address some of these kinds of issues. It's still
>>> here in cTAKES:
>>>
>>> ctakes-temporal/src/main/java/org/apache/ctakes/temporal/data/analysis
>>> /CompareFeatureStructures.java
>>>
>>> You might see if you could use or adapt that to your needs.
>>>
>>> Steve
>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
