Mailing-List: contact user-help@uima.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@uima.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of silvestre.losada@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.217.172 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <54ECC475.5060204@uni-wuerzburg.de>
References: 
 <CA+gF1kWADr9kq-wrP4WZ0yTMrNC-HLvCq0md0+Au28Bb6xw=KQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <54DE6A42.3000101@uni-wuerzburg.de>
 <CA+gF1kUw2MCU+p6yBWiOsHTSFZrgWztmjGH21i0B6id3RNuhew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+gF1kUQUmMnt92i-XMZup3WLC4Rg-XAWFAfMCM0SwxZVmV+qw@mail.gmail.com>
 <54E78DFC.1060804@uni-wuerzburg.de>
 <CA+gF1kWe4RQC5ZrTRBj2baj3sBq=4PsMXGv5Pi9JNor6ZcD--Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <54ECC475.5060204@uni-wuerzburg.de>
From: Silvestre Losada <silvestre.losada@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:41:26 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CA+gF1kUt-F+0iRy6pS-91NkW8nTVru=oSOJSzDpt4u=5K=vBxg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Ruta partofneq
To: user@uima.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01228a94a287a9050fe67121

--089e01228a94a287a9050fe67121
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Done

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


On 24 February 2015 at 19:35, Peter Kl=C3=BCgl <pkluegl@uni-wuerzburg.de> w=
rote:

> 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 arr=
ay
>> at some point of the execution. After that in PartOfNeqCondition in meth=
od
>> check next condition is always returning false because the Type was
>> removed
>> previously from ruta basic.
>>
>>      boolean partOf =3D beginAnchor.isPartOf(t) || endAnchor.isPartOf(t)=
;
>>      if (!partOf) {
>>        return false;
>>      }
>>
>> I have uima ruta test project that reproduces the error I can send to yo=
u
>> in zip file.
>>
>> Best.
>>
>> On 20 February 2015 at 20:41, Peter Kl=C3=BCgl <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 Kl=C3=BCgl <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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>

--089e01228a94a287a9050fe67121--