[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2167?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12878275#action_12878275
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-2167:
-------------------------------------
bq. Yes, you're right - fine-grained performance comparisons are inappropriate
here. You've said for other language(s?) that unigram/bigram combo works best -
too bad they didn't test that here.
agreed!
bq. You mentioned it would be useful to eliminate phrase matches across
sentence boundaries - what other problems would it solve?
in addition to inhibiting phrase matches, the sentence boundaries themselves
(however we would represent them) could be used by later filters: such as
inhibiting shingle generation, inhibiting multi-word synonym generation, ... I
am sure there are some other ways too that don't immediately come to mind.
at the moment the cleanest way I can think of doing this would be to bump the
position increment, but who knows. there doesnt' seem to be a de-facto way of
doing this, since nothing in lucene out of box implements or uses sentence
boundaries really, which is sad!
> Implement StandardTokenizer with the UAX#29 Standard
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2167
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2167
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: contrib/analyzers
> Affects Versions: 3.1
> Reporter: Shyamal Prasad
> Assignee: Steven Rowe
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENE-2167-jflex-tld-macro-gen.patch,
> LUCENE-2167-jflex-tld-macro-gen.patch, LUCENE-2167-jflex-tld-macro-gen.patch,
> LUCENE-2167-lucene-buildhelper-maven-plugin.patch,
> LUCENE-2167.benchmark.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch,
> LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch,
> LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch,
> LUCENE-2167.patch, LUCENE-2167.patch
>
> Original Estimate: 0.5h
> Remaining Estimate: 0.5h
>
> It would be really nice for StandardTokenizer to adhere straight to the
> standard as much as we can with jflex. Then its name would actually make
> sense.
> Such a transition would involve renaming the old StandardTokenizer to
> EuropeanTokenizer, as its javadoc claims:
> bq. This should be a good tokenizer for most European-language documents
> The new StandardTokenizer could then say
> bq. This should be a good tokenizer for most languages.
> All the english/euro-centric stuff like the acronym/company/apostrophe stuff
> can stay with that EuropeanTokenizer, and it could be used by the european
> analyzers.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
