Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

add 1st draft line GT/training specs #105

Open
wants to merge 17 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

add 1st draft line GT/training specs #105

wants to merge 17 commits into from

Conversation

kba
Copy link
Member

@kba kba commented Jan 29, 2019

No description provided.

wrznr
wrznr previously requested changes Jan 29, 2019
Copy link
Contributor

@wrznr wrznr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I strongly recommend the introduction of a third GT subset devel.

In addition, some minor comments.

gt-profile.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
gt-profile.yml Show resolved Hide resolved
gt-spec.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
gt-spec.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
gt-spec.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
gt-spec.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
gt-spec.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
training-schema.yml Show resolved Hide resolved
gt-profile.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@kba
Copy link
Member Author

kba commented Jan 31, 2019

I strongly recommend the introduction of a third GT subset devel.

@wrznr Can you elaborate?

@wrznr
Copy link
Contributor

wrznr commented Mar 19, 2019

@kba

Can you elaborate?

Most training procedures allow for the application of three different sets of GT: train, eval and devel. While the purpose for the first two is supposedly clear, the latter is used during training for parameter fixing and error estimation. E.g. ocropus-rtrain has the parameter --tests for this purpose. Note that strictly speaking you may not abuse your evaluation data as development data.

@wrznr
Copy link
Contributor

wrznr commented Mar 19, 2019

@cneud
Copy link
Member

cneud commented May 21, 2019

@wrznr So far I mainly applied k-fold_cross-validation, would you still see added benefits over this by partitioning into three sets?

- groundTruthBag
- model
properties:
engineName:
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

delete .Derived from model

- kraken
- tesseract
- calamari
engineVersion:
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

delete .Derived from model

required: false
default: 'image/png'
values:
- 'image/png'
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would a differentiation between Tiff compressed or JPEG2000 make more sense?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You mean additionally allow image/jp2? Do engines allow JPEG2000 input for training?

BagIt-Profile-Info:
BagIt-Profile-Identifier: https://ocr-d.github.io/gt-profile.json
BagIt-Profile-Version: '1.2.0'
Source-Organization: OCR-D
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What about information about the origin of the digitized lines?

  • minimal bibliographic record based on DC?
  • and artificially generated lines (+ degeneration)
  • what about the degeneration algorithm?

I think that comment may be in the wrong place here. It should probably be placed in this place ## Line metadata##.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See https://github.com/OCR-D/spec/pull/105/files/6827085d051e945062203b82ef921e54025cfbda#diff-ee256e83a17cfe309565c88ab376091a That is the definition of what's currently supposed to be in there. Bibliographic metadata would be in the METS referred to by metsUrl. How to encode provenance on a line-level I am not sure though. @VolkerHartmann?

@cneud
Copy link
Member

cneud commented Aug 8, 2019

@wrznr Do your remaining @wrznr requested changes relate to this comment only or is there other stuff that needs changing (for the time being)?

@kba
Copy link
Member Author

kba commented Aug 8, 2019

@Doreenruirui's work on okralact has diverged significantly from these specs. It makes little sense to publish these specs with the only implementation implementing it differently.

@Doreenruirui can you compare your schemas and documentation with this so we can integrate that part of okralact into the specs?

@Doreenruirui
Copy link

@Doreenruirui's work on okralact has diverged significantly from these specs. It makes little sense to publish these specs with the only implementation implementing it differently.

@Doreenruirui can you compare your schemas and documentation with this so we can integrate that part of okralact into the specs?

@kba I am sorry that I am not very familiar with github. Can you point me to the document I should compare with my schemas?

@kba
Copy link
Member Author

kba commented Aug 8, 2019

@wrznr wrznr dismissed their stale review August 9, 2019 08:08

My original review does not relate to the current state very much.

@cneud cneud removed the request for review from VolkerHartmann August 15, 2022 19:20
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants