uima-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Klügl <peter.klu...@averbis.com>
Subject Re: UIMA Ruta use of features in a block statement
Date Thu, 13 Jul 2017 07:32:49 GMT
Hi,


Am 12.07.2017 um 18:35 schrieb Sumit Madan:
> Am 06.07.2017 um 18:00 schrieb Peter Klügl:
>> Hi,
>
> Hi Peter,
>
>> I cannot reproduce the problem. So you have maybe a small runnable test?
>
> I've created a small runnable test with DKPro (1.8.0) and Ruta
> (2.6.0). I've to say that I'm also unable to reproduce the problem.
> All block constructs are working just fine in the runnable test.
>
> For the documents that we process in our internal pipeline, which is
> mostly identical to the runnable test, the block constructs on Lemma
> type are not working. The pipeline uses our own internal type system.
> I've tried to do some debugging but not able to find the problem. A
> characteristic of our pipeline is that we work on a different view
> than _InitialView. I've also considered this aspect in the runnable test.
>
> As I cannot provide you the source code of the internal pipeline,
> we've created a minimal serialized CAS with debug types. May be you
> can identify the problem in the CAS? (The serialized CAS has been sent
> to your private email address.)
>
> The applied rules:
> ###
> BLOCK(forEACH) Lemma{}{
>       Lemma{->MATCHEDTEXT(s), ASSIGN(a,contains(s,"er"))};
>       Lemma{a ->Value1};
> }
> ###
>

I'll take a look. Could take a few days until I get back to you.


> Another small issue: DebugRuleApply.element doesn't always match with
> the original rules. For example, for the second rule, it contains the
> value "Lemma{-&gt;MATCHEDTEXT(s, ),ASSIGN(a, contains(s))};", which is
> not identical to the user input.
>

Yes, unfortunately I did not really take care of it since it is only
debug info. I assume you are referring to the comma? I'll fix that. Let
me know if you observe more.

Best,

Peter

>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 31.05.2017 um 14:18 schrieb Sumit Madan:
>>> Am 31.05.2017 um 13:26 schrieb Sumit Madan:
>>>> Am 31.05.2017 um 09:59 schrieb Peter Klügl:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>
>>>>> Am 30.05.2017 um 19:35 schrieb Sumit Madan:
>>>>>> We were not able to access the annotation within the BLOCK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ###
>>>>>> STRING s;
>>>>>> BOOLEAN a ;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // This is not working for us:
>>>>>> BLOCK(forEACH) Lemma{}{
>>>>>>       Lemma{->MATCHEDTEXT(s), ASSIGN(a,contains(s,"er"))};
>>>>>>       Lemma{a ->Test1};
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // This is working:
>>>>>> BLOCK(forEACH) Lemma{}{
>>>>>>       W{->MATCHEDTEXT(s), ASSIGN(a,contains(s,"er"))};
>>>>>>       W{a ->Test2};
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // This is also working:
>>>>>> BLOCK(forEACH) Lemma{}{
>>>>>> Document{->MATCHEDTEXT(s), ASSIGN(a,contains(s,"er"))};
>>>>>> Document{a ->Test3};
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> ###
>>>>>>
>>>>> All three examples should work. Which ruta version do you use? It
>>>>> looks
>>>>> like a bug.
>>>> Lisa is testing again and will get back to you.
>>> We tested it again and can confirm the following:
>>>
>>> ###
>>> STRING s;
>>> BOOLEAN a ;
>>>
>>> // This is not working:
>>> BLOCK(forEACH1) Lemma{} { // Matches a lot
>>>       Lemma{->MATCHEDTEXT(s), ASSIGN(a,contains(s,"er"))}; // Matches 0
>>>       Lemma{a ->Test1};
>>> }
>>>
>>> // This is not working:
>>> BLOCK(forEACH2) Lemma{} { // Matches a lot
>>> Lemma{contains(Lemma.ct, "er") -> MARK(Test2)}; // Matches 0
>>> }
>>>
>>> // This is working:
>>> Lemma{contains(Lemma.ct, "er") -> MARK(Test3)}; // Matches 1
>>>
>>> // This is working:
>>> BLOCK(forEACH4) Lemma{}{
>>>       W{->MATCHEDTEXT(s), ASSIGN(a,contains(s,"er"))}; // Matches 1
>>>       W{a ->Test4};
>>> }
>>>
>>> // This is also working:
>>> BLOCK(forEACH5) Lemma{}{
>>>      Document{->MATCHEDTEXT(s), ASSIGN(a,contains(s,"er"))}; //
>>> Matches 1
>>>      Document{a ->Test5};
>>> }
>>> ###
>>>
>>> Is it possible that in a BLOCK only Ruta types are available?
>>>
>>> We are using the latest stable version 2.6.0.
>>>
>
>


Mime
View raw message