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 Sat, 14 Feb 2015 08:29:20 GMT
Thanks Peter,


It seems to work.

On 13 February 2015 at 22:18, Peter Kl├╝gl <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