no big deal, just wanted to mention..... On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 1:24 PM, <dar...@ontrenet.com> wrote:
> > This is a little bit of hijacking going on here, but.... > You are right. Accept my regrets. > > > > It's algorithmic. That is, there isn't a list of variants that > > stem to the same infinitive, and your statement > > "always the same infintive for any derivate of the word" > > isn't quite what happens. > > > > Stemmers will always produce the same infinitive for any given > > word, just the opposite of what you said. But it is NOT guaranteed > > that a stemmer will always produce the same infinitive for all > > derivatives. Rather it just does a pretty darn good job with some > > anomalies because the rules don't cover all the edge cases. > > > > Their *goal* is to do it perfectly, but we all know about unachievable > > goals... > > > > HTH > > Erick > > > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:28 PM, MitchK <mitc...@web.de> wrote: > > > >> > >> I am curious: > >> The idea behind a stemmer is not that he produces the correct infinitive > >> for > >> a given word. The idea is that he produces always the same infintive for > >> any > >> derivate of the word. > >> > >> What would be, if there is an unknown word? For example something like > >> slang? How does your solution works here? Does it scale? > >> > >> Thank you for sharing experiences. :) > >> > >> - Mitch > >> -- > >> View this message in context: > >> http://n3.nabble.com/LucidWorks-Solr-tp727341p730059.html > >> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >> > > > >
