Re: [Mat-annotation-users] 27.3994, Software: Computational Linguistics; Text/Corpus Linguistics: MITRE Annotation Toolkit 3.1

[Alexandre R. <ara...@gm...>]

Thank you so much for this detailed answer. I will let Claudia and Livy decide if it is worth to try.

Best,

--
Alexandre Rademaker
http://arademaker.github.io <http://arademaker.github.io/>


> On 6 Dec 2016, at 13:01, Samuel Bayer <sa...@mi...> wrote:
> 
> It's been a long time since someone begged me to use MAT :-).
> 
> There's no problem with the expressiveness of MAT's document model or annotation scheme - with the exception of discontinuous spans, which MAT doesn't do, it's at least as expressive as brat in every way. There's also no problem with viewing dependencies in the annotation table. My concerns are several:
> 
> - First, it's pretty clumsy to associate the document sentences with the relevant annotations in the table. I suppose you could get around this by having each sentence be a separate document.
> 
> - Second, I'm surprised that your annotators prefer to review dependencies in a table - when I've reviewed dependency annotations, I've found the arcs in the palette to be crucial to my figuring out what was going on. But to each his or her own, I suppose.
> 
> - Third, I think you'd find that editing the annotations would be extremely clumsy. If you don't care about doing that, this isn't an issue.
> 
> There's no on-line demo. But I can promise you that installing MAT is trivial, and if you want to check it out, by all means do so. However, you will need to spend some time to design your annotation task and convert your data into something MAT can read.
> 
> Cheers,
> Sam
>