uima-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Renaud Richardet <renaud.richar...@gmail.com>
Subject Ruta syntax simplifications?
Date Tue, 28 Apr 2015 14:36:55 GMT

I have been using Ruta a lot lately, and it has made me much more
productive. Thanks to all the people that contributed to it!

I have been thinking about two small syntax simplifications and was
wondering if they would make sense:

A) Types declarations (2.5.1)

// Types with features may add a parent type in their declarations.

// *If no parent type is specified, Annotation is used as the implied
default parent type. *

// before

DECLARE Annotation MyAnnotation(STRING myFeature);

// after

DECLARE MyAnnotation(STRING myFeature);

B) Matching condition

// The matching condition of the rule element refers to the complete

// or more specific to the annotation of the type ‚ÄúDocumentAnnotation‚ÄĚ,
which covers the whole document.

// *If no matching rule is specified, the whole document
(DocumentAnnotation) is implicitely used. *

// before

Document{-> MARKFAST(Animal, 'Animals.txt')};

// after

MARKFAST(Animal, 'Animals.txt');

What do you think? Do they make sense? Would that introduce some
inconsistencies / ambiguity in the Ruta language? Would the implementation
be hard?

All the best, Renaud

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