I've forgotten most of what I knew about ConllDependencyNode - do you
need headNode
to have access to attributes specific to the ConllDependencyNode type or
would a BaseToken suffice, to generalize the solution?
If a ConllDependencyNode is what's needed, then what you proposed sounds
good to me.
-
I don't see any issues with adding the additional optional
attribute... I think we already did the same for other items like
relations for similar reasons. The only catch is probably that the
dependency will need the dictionary lookup to be run first (assuming
that the logic will be added to the D
How do people feel about modifying the typesystem? I'm finding that
grabbing the dependency headword is something very useful for feature
extraction. But it is a bottleneck if every feature extractor that uses
it has to recompute it. So I propose adding a field to the
IdentifiedAnnotation type of "
