uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marshall Schor <...@schor.com>
Subject Re: Rework of resultSpecification impl
Date Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:43:38 GMT


On 8/12/2010 5:38 PM, Adam Lally wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com> wrote:
>
>>  While trying to address the issue that resulted in re-opening
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-1840
>>
>> I've discovered several corner cases where the impl may not be doing the
>> right thing.
>>
>> Here's one:
>>
>> ResultSpec has typeXXX:featYYY
>>
>> type system has subtype of typeXXX, call it typeXXXsub
>>
>> In this case, it seems to me that containsFeature(typeXXXsub:featYYY)
>> should return true, but I think it will return false in our current impl.
>>
> Returning true seems correct to me.
>
>
>
>> ========
>>
>> Another case:
>>
>> ResultSpec has typeXXX, allFeatures
>>
>> In this case, it seem also that containsFeature(typeXXXsub:featYYY) could
>> return true, but I can also see an argument where it would not.
>>
>> Argument for returning true: the designation of allFeatures for typeXXX is
>> thought to mean all features for this type, and all features for any
>> subtypes, including those features introduced only in the subtypes.
>>
>> Argument for returning false: the designation of allFeatures for typeXXX is
>> thought to mean all features just of this type. If subtypes introduce
>> additional features, those are not covered by this specification.
>>
>> This may be a nit, which no one is (currently) using, but I'd like to have
>> a clear definition for it and make the impl conform.
>>
> I vote for the latter.  True should be returned only if featYYY is defined
> in typeXXX.

This seems more correct to me, also. -Marshall
> -Adam
>

Mime
View raw message