Support for PTB and Universal POS tags
See original GitHub issueIssue text updated by @goodmami
This issue appears to be a request to automatically map other part-of-speech tag schemes (such as PTB and Universal POS) to the ones used by wordnets so that a lookup for, e.g., wn.words('dog', pos='VERB')
is equivalent to wn.words('dog', pos='v')
. I’m not sure if the request is to also support reverse mappings (e.g., synset.ptb_pos
).
Original issue text:
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created a year ago
- Comments:6 (4 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Allow `nltk.corpus.wordnet` to take in PTB and Universal tags
I think the issue arises when people are told that NLTK WordNet now supports Universal/PTB, as they might e.g. try to find synsets...
Read more >Universal POS tags
These tags mark the core part-of-speech categories. To distinguish additional lexical and grammatical properties of words, use the universal features.
Read more >How to reduce the number of POS tags in Penn Treebank?
If you ask it to map from en-ptb (the Penn Treebank PoS) to universal you will reduce the number of PoS tags.
Read more >From POS tagging to dependency parsing for ... - NCBI
We have presented a detailed empirical study comparing traditional feature-based and neural network-based models for POS tagging and dependency parsing in the ...
Read more >Penn Treebank P.O.S. Tags
Alphabetical list of part-of-speech tags used in the Penn Treebank Project: ; 17. POS, Possessive ending ; 18. PRP, Personal pronoun ; 19....
Read more >
Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start Free
Top Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Ok, I think I understand. I’ve updated the original issue text to clarify (please update if it’s inaccurate).
However, my initial reaction is that this is not a good fit for Wn. Unlike the NLTK, Wn is not trying to accommodate a wide range of NLP tasks, but is specifically about modeling and working with wordnet data as defined by WN-LMF. I would therefore suggest using another tag mapper with Wn, such as the NLTK’s nltk.tag.mapping (but I’m not sure if it supports the wordnet tagset). If it does, you could write a wrapper function:
Since support for non-wordnet POS schemes is not currently part of the roadmap, so I will close this as wontfix.