I am not sure that if we set it to 1.5.2 we are supposed to generate a
fix for that version. I think it is not the case. We should have
strong reasons for that, and you are using trunk anyway.


On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Jim - FooBar(); <[email protected]> wrote:
> I opened  JIRA issue but i may have done something wrong...
> I 'm stating that it affects version 1.5.2 while in fact i'm using the
> latest code from svn (checkout a version this morning)...if by any chance it
> used to work with 1.5.2 then my JIRA ticket is inaccurate...
>
> Jim
>
>
> On 17/03/12 18:22, Jim - FooBar(); wrote:
>>
>> Hey William,
>>
>> That sounds easy so, good news...I'll open a JIRA for it now.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On 17/03/12 18:16, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> I found the problem. The NameFinderEvaluator expects typed spans, but
>>> the DictionaryNameFinder outputs the old untyped spans. For now we
>>> should fix it by setting the span types to default.
>>>
>>> Can you please open a Jira ?
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> William
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 11:01 AM, [email protected]
>>> <[email protected]>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you, I read it too fast.
>>>>
>>>> I will try to check what is wrong latter today.
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Jim - FooBar();<[email protected]>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17/03/12 13:37, Jim - FooBar(); wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to start working on integrating the 2 but i can't, unless
>>>>>> I can be sure that both evaluations work, at least independently.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey William,
>>>>>
>>>>> maybe the above phrase confused you...
>>>>> by "both evaluations" i meant for the DictionaryNameFinder&  the
>>>>> NameFinderME  objects.  So far i've only managed to do both regular
>>>>> evaluation and cross-valdation for the model but i can't do any kind of
>>>>> evaluation on the Dictionary.
>>>>>
>>>>> (of course only one type of evaluation makes sense for the dictionary
>>>>> and
>>>>> that is the regular one, but that always returns 0s and -1s).
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope that helps
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to