Mailing-List: contact user-help@uima.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@uima.apache.org
Message-ID: <55A13339.3050603@uni-wuerzburg.de>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 17:16:09 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ZXIgS2zDvGds?= <pkluegl@uni-wuerzburg.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: user@uima.apache.org
Subject: Re: Problem with matching of composite rules
References: <loom.20150709T161938-343@post.gmane.org>
 <559F8BE5.7090700@uni-wuerzburg.de> <loom.20150710T135114-315@post.gmane.org>
 <559FCCA1.5030707@averbis.com>
In-Reply-To: <559FCCA1.5030707@averbis.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

The problem was caused by two separate bugs in the rule inference. They 
are now fixed in the current trunk.

Thanks for reporting it :-)

Best,

Peter

Am 10.07.2015 um 15:46 schrieb Peter Klügl:
> Hi,
>
> Am 10.07.2015 um 13:55 schrieb Andreas Weber:
>> Peter Klügl <pkluegl@...> writes:
>>> ... in the light of current events and since you use it integrated in
>>> your software:
>>> Did you use an analysis engine for creating the CAS or, in case you
>>> created it using a type system, did you consider the type priotities?
>>>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> thanks for your help.
>>
>> We create our CAS and annotations programmatically using our own type
>> system, we don't use another UIMA annotator.
>>
>> I played a little bit around with type priorities (MY_ANNO > W)  but 
>> that
>> had no impact. The main problem seems to be that we have the _same_
>> annotation type at one input position.
>
> That shouldnt't be a problem at all ;-)
>
> UIMA Ruta brings its own type priorities for some special internal 
> types. If the priorities are missing then there could be some problems 
> in sequential matching.
>
> I'll take a look at it.
>
> Best,
>
> Peter
>
>
>> Regards,
>>   Andreas
>>
>