uima-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Silvestre Losada <silvestre.los...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Ruta partofneq
Date Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:41:26 GMT
Done

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4261



On 24 February 2015 at 19:35, Peter Klügl <pkluegl@uni-wuerzburg.de> wrote:

> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message