internal static bool CheckIfSatisfiesRelConstrains(SemanticGraph g, IndexedWord curr, IndexedWord child, IList <string> allCutOffRels, GrammaticalRelation rel)
{
string relName = rel.GetShortName();
string relSpecificName = rel.ToString();
string relFullName = rel.GetLongName();
if (allCutOffRels != null)
{
foreach (string check in allCutOffRels)
{
if (relName.Matches(check) || (relSpecificName != null && relSpecificName.Matches(check)) || (relFullName != null && relFullName.Matches(check)))
{
return(true);
}
}
}
return(false);
}
private void ExtractNPorPRPFromDependency(ICoreMap s, IList <Mention> mentions, ICollection <IntPair> mentionSpanSet, ICollection <IntPair> namedEntitySpanSet)
{
IList <CoreLabel> sent = s.Get(typeof(CoreAnnotations.TokensAnnotation));
SemanticGraph basic = s.Get(typeof(SemanticGraphCoreAnnotations.BasicDependenciesAnnotation));
IList <IndexedWord> nounsOrPrp = basic.GetAllNodesByPartOfSpeechPattern("N.*|PRP.*|DT");
// DT is for "this, these, etc"
Tree tree = s.Get(typeof(TreeCoreAnnotations.TreeAnnotation));
foreach (IndexedWord w in nounsOrPrp)
{
SemanticGraphEdge edge = basic.GetEdge(basic.GetParent(w), w);
GrammaticalRelation rel = null;
string shortname = "root";
// if edge is null, it's root
if (edge != null)
{
rel = edge.GetRelation();
shortname = rel.GetShortName();
}
// TODO: what to remove? remove more?
if (shortname.Matches("det|compound"))
{
// // for debug ---------------
// Tree t = tree.getLeaves().get(w.index()-1);
// for(Tree p : tree.pathNodeToNode(t, tree)) {
// if(p.label().value().equals("NP")) {
// HeadFinder headFinder = new SemanticHeadFinder();
// Tree head = headFinder.determineHead(p);
// if(head == t.parent(tree)) {
// log.info();
// }
// break;
// }
// } // for debug -------------
continue;
}
else
{
ExtractMentionForHeadword(w, basic, s, mentions, mentionSpanSet, namedEntitySpanSet);
}
}
}
static ChineseGrammaticalRelations()
{
/*
* The "predicate" grammatical relation.
*/
// Fri Feb 20 15:42:54 2009 (pichuan)
// I'm surprise this relation has patterns.
// However it doesn't seem to match anything in CTB6.
/*
* public static final GrammaticalRelation PREDICATE =
* new GrammaticalRelation(Language.Chinese, "pred", "predicate",
* PredicateGRAnnotation.class, DEPENDENT, "IP",
* new String[]{
* " IP=target !> IP"
* });
* public static class PredicateGRAnnotation
* extends GrammaticalRelationAnnotation { }
*/
// Split the first rule to the second rule to avoid the duplication:
// ccomp(前来-12, 投资-13)
// conj(前来-12, 投资-13)
//
// (IP
// (VP
// (VP (VV 前来))
// (VP
// (VCD (VV 投资) (VV 办厂)))
// (CC 和)
// (VP (VV 洽谈)
// (NP (NN 生意))))))
// TODO: this following line has to be fixed.
// I think for now it just doesn't match anything.
//"VP|NP|ADJP|PP|ADVP|UCP < ( __=target $+ (PU < 、) )",
// Consider changing the rule ABOVE to these rules.
//"ADVP < ( /^AD/=target $+ ((PU < 、) $+ /^AD/))",
// This is for the 'conj's separated by commas.
// For now this creates too much duplicates with 'ccomp'.
// Need to look at more examples.
// Original version of this did not have the outer layer of
// the FRAG|INC|IP|VP. This caused a bug where the basic
// dependencies could have cycles.
// This following rule is too general and collides with 'ccomp'.
// Delete it for now.
// TODO: come up with a new rule. Does this exist in Chinese?
//"IP < (IP=target $+ ( VP !< VC))",
/*
* The "indirect object" grammatical relation.
*/
// deleted by pichuan: no real matches
/*
* public static final GrammaticalRelation INDIRECT_OBJECT =
* new GrammaticalRelation(Language.Chinese,
* "iobj", "indirect object",
* IndirectObjectGRAnnotation.class, OBJECT, "VP",
* new String[]{
* " CP !> VP < ( VV $+ ( NP|DP|QP|CLP=target . NP|DP ) )"
* });
* public static class IndirectObjectGRAnnotation
* extends GrammaticalRelationAnnotation { }
*/
// " VP|IP < ( VV|VC|VRD|VCD !$+ NP|QP|LCP ) > (IP < IP|VP|VRD|VCD=target) "
// "VP < (S=target < (VP !<, TO|VBG) !$-- NP)",
// pichuan: this is difficult to recognize in Chinese.
// remove the rules since it (always) collides with ccomp
// TODO: these rules seem to always collide with ccomp.
// Is this really desirable behavior?
//"VP !> (/^VP/ < /^VC$/ ) < (IP=target < (VP < P))",
//"ADJP < (IP=target <, (VP <, P))",
//"VP < (IP=target < (NP $+ NP|ADJP))",
//"VP < (/^VC/ $+ (VP=target < VC < NP))"
/*
* The "adjectival complement" grammatical relation.
* Example:
*/
// deleted by pichuan: no real matches
/*
* public static final GrammaticalRelation ADJECTIVAL_COMPLEMENT =
* new GrammaticalRelation(Language.Chinese,
* "acomp", "adjectival complement",
* AdjectivalComplementGRAnnotation.class, COMPLEMENT, "VP", tregexCompiler,
* new String[]{
* "VP < (ADJP=target !$-- NP)"
* });
* public static class AdjectivalComplementGRAnnotation
* extends GrammaticalRelationAnnotation { }
*/
/* This rule actually matches nothing.
* There's another tmod rule. This is removed for now.
* (pichuan) Sun Mar 8 18:22:40 2009
*/
/*
* public static final GrammaticalRelation TEMPORAL_MODIFIER =
* new GrammaticalRelation(Language.Chinese,
* "tmod", "temporal modifier",
* TemporalModifierGRAnnotation.class, MODIFIER, "VP|IP|ADJP", tregexCompiler,
* new String[]{
* " VC|VE ! >> VP|ADJP < NP=target < NT",
* "VC|VE !>>IP <( NP=target < NT $++ VP !< VC|VE )"
* });
* public static class TemporalModifierGRAnnotation
* extends GrammaticalRelationAnnotation { }
*/
// pichuan: previously "tclaus"
// TODO: we should figure out various ways to improve this pattern to
// improve both its precision and recall
//"DP < DT < QP=target"
/*
* The "possession modifier" grammatical relation.
*/
// Fri Feb 20 15:40:13 2009 (pichuan)
// I think this "poss" relation is just WRONG.
// DEC is a complementizer or a nominalizer,
// this rule probably originally want to capture "DEG".
// But it seems like it's covered by "assm" (associative marker).
/*
* public static final GrammaticalRelation POSSESSION_MODIFIER =
* new GrammaticalRelation(Language.Chinese,
* "poss", "possession modifier",
* PossessionModifierGRAnnotation.class, MODIFIER, "NP", tregexCompiler,
* new String[]{
* "NP < ( PN=target $+ DEC $+ NP )"
* });
* public static class PossessionModifierGRAnnotation
* extends GrammaticalRelationAnnotation { }
*/
/*
* The "possessive marker" grammatical relation.
*/
// Similar to the comments to "poss",
// I think this relation is wrong and will not appear.
/*
* public static final GrammaticalRelation POSSESSIVE_MODIFIER =
* new GrammaticalRelation(Language.Chinese, "possm", "possessive marker",
* PossessiveModifierGRAnnotation.class,
* MODIFIER, "NP", tregexCompiler,
* new String[]{
* "NP < ( PN $+ DEC=target ) "
* });
* public static class PossessiveModifierGRAnnotation
* extends GrammaticalRelationAnnotation { }
*/
// pichuan: previously "clmpd"
//ADJECTIVAL_COMPLEMENT,
//INDIRECT_OBJECT,
//POSSESSION_MODIFIER,
//POSSESSIVE_MODIFIER,
//PREDICATE,
// Cache frequently used views of the values list
for (int i = 0; i < rawValues.Length; i++)
{
GrammaticalRelation gr = rawValues[i];
synchronizedValues.Add(gr);
}
ValuesLock().Lock();
try
{
foreach (GrammaticalRelation gr in Edu.Stanford.Nlp.Trees.International.Pennchinese.ChineseGrammaticalRelations.Values())
{
shortNameToGRel[gr.GetShortName()] = gr;
}
}
finally
{
ValuesLock().Unlock();
}
}