I agree. I think intermediate types in this case would only have been useful if UIMA supported type parameters (generics) in the type system.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Miller, Timothy <timothy.mil...@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.beth...@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.mil...@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 >> >
