Here are a bunch of resources which will help:
This does TC <=> SC conversions: http://search.cpan.org/~audreyt/Encode-HanConvert-0.35/lib/Encode/HanConvert.pm This has a TC <=> SC converter in there somewhere: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki This explains some of the issues behind TC <=> SC conversions: http://people.w3.org/rishida/scripts/chinese/ Misc tools: http://mandarintools.com/ François On Mar 7, 2011, at 7:01 PM, Andy wrote: > Thanks. Please tell me more about the tables/software that does the > conversion. Really appreciate your help. > > > --- On Mon, 3/7/11, François Schiettecatte <fschietteca...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> From: François Schiettecatte <fschietteca...@gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: How to handle searches across traditional and simplifies >> Chinese? >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >> Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 5:24 PM >> I did a little research into this for >> a client a while. The character mapping is not one to one >> which complicates things (TC and SC have evolved >> independently) and if you want to do a perfect job you will >> need a dictionary. However there are tables out there (I can >> dig one up for you) that allow conversion from one to the >> other. So you would pick either TC or SC as your canonical >> Chinese, and just convert all the documents and searches to >> it. >> >> I will stress that this is very much a brute force >> approach, the mapping is not perfect and the two character >> sets have evolved (much like UK and US English, I was >> brought up in the UK and live in the US). >> >> Hope this helps. >> >> Cheers >> >> François >> >> On Mar 7, 2011, at 5:02 PM, Andy wrote: >> >>> I have documents that contain both simplified and >> traditional Chinese characters. Is there any way to search >> across them? For example, if someone searches for 类 >> (simplified Chinese), I'd like to be able to recognize that >> the equivalent character is 類 in traditional Chinese and >> search for 类 or 類 in the documents. >>> >>> Is that something that Solr, or any related software, >> can do? Is there a standard approach in dealing with this >> problem? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >