uima-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Klügl <pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de>
Subject Re: Ruta partofneq
Date Tue, 24 Feb 2015 18:35:33 GMT
Hi,

could you open an issue and attach it there? That would be great.

Best,

Peter

Am 24.02.2015 um 18:13 schrieb Silvestre Losada:
> Hi Peter,
>
> The problem happens if the Annotations are created by external analysis
> engine, using something like this
>
> ENGINE TestAE;
> Document{-> EXEC(TestAE,{TestType})};
> (TestType{-> UNMARKALL(TestType)}){PARTOFNEQ(TestType)};
>
> It seems that  ExecAction is removing the Type form RutaBasic.partOf array
> at some point of the execution. After that in PartOfNeqCondition in method
> check next condition is always returning false because the Type was removed
> previously from ruta basic.
>
>      boolean partOf = beginAnchor.isPartOf(t) || endAnchor.isPartOf(t);
>      if (!partOf) {
>        return false;
>      }
>
> I have uima ruta test project that reproduces the error I can send to you
> in zip file.
>
> Best.
>
> On 20 February 2015 at 20:41, Peter Klügl <pkluegl@uni-wuerzburg.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> hmmm, that's strange. When I apply the rules on the document "A B C D",
>> only one T1 annotation remains.
>>
>> On which document did you test the rules?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> Am 20.02.2015 um 09:17 schrieb Silvestre Losada:
>>
>>   HI again,
>>> Now I'm running into this problem
>>> DECLARE T1;
>>> "A B C D" -> T1;
>>> "B" -> T1;
>>> "C D" -> T1;
>>> "D" -> T1;
>>>
>>> (T1{-> UNMARKALL(T1)}){PARTOFNEQ(T1)};
>>>
>>> The ouput is
>>> "A B C D" -> T1;
>>> "D" -> T1;
>>>
>>> I suspect that this is because D is part of "A B C D" and "C D"
>>>
>>> Im using lastest version in trunk.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> On 14 February 2015 at 09:29, Silvestre Losada <
>>> silvestre.losada@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>   Thanks Peter,
>>>>
>>>> It seems to work.
>>>>
>>>> On 13 February 2015 at 22:18, Peter Klügl <pkluegl@uni-wuerzburg.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   This should work just fine and should remove both contained annotations.
>>>>> I just tested it with the current trunk and the following script:
>>>>>
>>>>> DECLARE T1;
>>>>> "A B" -> T1;
>>>>> "B" -> T1;
>>>>> "B" -> T1;
>>>>>
>>>>> (T1{-> UNMARK(T1)}){PARTOFNEQ(T1)};
>>>>>
>>>>> If applied on the test "A B", only the largest annotation remains.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you test it with the current trunk in case I fixed the bug a few
>>>>> minutes ago by accident. If not, can you give me more information about
>>>>> the
>>>>> context of your rule?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 12.02.2015 um 10:12 schrieb Silvestre Losada:
>>>>>
>>>>>    I dont know if this is a bug or if it is wokring well. I have the
>>>>>
>>>>>> following
>>>>>> annotations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AnnotationA
>>>>>>         begin:0
>>>>>>         ends:8
>>>>>>          id:1
>>>>>> AnnotationA
>>>>>>         begin:4
>>>>>>         ends:8
>>>>>>          id:2
>>>>>> AnnotationA
>>>>>>         begin: 4
>>>>>>         ends:8
>>>>>>          id:3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then if apply the following ruta
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (AnnotationA{-> UNMARK(AnnotationA)}){PARTOFNEQ(AnnotationA)};
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The output is
>>>>>> AnnotationA
>>>>>>         begin:0
>>>>>>         ends:8
>>>>>>          id:1
>>>>>> AnnotationA
>>>>>>         begin: 4
>>>>>>         ends:8
>>>>>>          id:3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I expect that annotations with id 2 and 3 will be removed. Is there
any
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> to remove both
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>


Mime
View raw message