Hi Peter,

Well, I want to remove them to make the output thinner. XML is very
verbose, and when it comes to persisting a large number of cas files, every
extra annotation can make the life harder in the long run. I do agree, that
it is good to keep them for explainability and debugging purposes.

I was about to ask another question of whether unmarking a parent also
unmarks the child annotations -- I noticed this happen while experimenting
-- and your example confirms it ;)

DECLARE Local LeftBoundary;
DECLARE Local RightBoundary;
l:Local{-> UNMARK(l)};


Honestly, it is not intuitive that child nodes will be affected. The
documentation does not mention it at all. Would you mind explaining the
purpose of parent classes? Another question... I thought that derived
annotations will inherit the properties of their parent annotation, like
normal subclasses in OOP, but looks like they dont:

DECLARE Money (STRING name, INT amount);

DECLARE Money SellPrice;

In this example, SellPrice does not automatically have the fields that
Money has. Hmm.. Why does one need to use parent class then? Related
question, what if I declare SellPrice with the same fields:

DECLARE Annotation  Money    (STRING name, INT amount);
DECLARE Money        SellPrice (STRING name, INT amount);


what is then the easier method of copying the values from Money to
SellPrice? For the time being, I use TRANSFER statement, like this:

SomeContent Money {-> TRANSFER(SellPrice) } SomeContext;

Frohe Ostern!

BR, Nikolai

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:25 PM Peter Klügl <peter.kluegl@averbis.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> why do you want to remove them? I tend to keep them for better
> explainability of the rule inference.
>
>
> In UIMA 2, removing the annotation will mainly only influence the index.
> The garbage collector will not clean them up. Well, in UIMA 3 that
> changes...
>
>
> If you want to remove them, there are several options. I would prefer to
> either use a parent type or an annotation list. Just a quick guess...
>
>
> Use a single parent type to identify temporary annotations:
>
>
> DECLARE Local LeftBoundary;
>
> DECLARE Local RightBoundary;
>
> l:Local{-> UNMARK(l)};
>
>
> Store temporary annotations in a list and remove the values of the list:
>
>
> ANNOTATIONLIST locals;
>
> lb:LeftBoundary{-> ADD(locals, lb)};
>
> l:locals{-> UNMARK(l)};
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Peter
>
>
> Am 17.04.2019 um 21:15 schrieb Nikolai Krot:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > When developing rules, i often use temporary annotations. For example, to
> > create an anchor, another rule will rely upon. Is there any quick way to
> > delete such temporary annotations (form the document) when the annotation
> > process has concluded? For the time being, I delete them individually
> with
> > an UNMARK statement, like this:
> >
> > leftBoundary {-> UNMARK(leftBoundary)};
> >
> >
> > If such a shortcut does not yet exist, what do you think about extending
> > DECLARE statement to include an indication of such tempoary nature of the
> > type, a la
> >
> > DECLARE leftBoundary as local;
> >
> >
> > Opinions? Ideas?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Nikolai
> >
> --
> Dr. Peter Klügl
> R&D Text Mining/Machine Learning
>
> Averbis GmbH
> Salzstr. 15
> 79098 Freiburg
> Germany
>
> Fon: +49 761 708 394 0
> Fax: +49 761 708 394 10
> Email: peter.kluegl@averbis.com
> Web: https://averbis.com
>
> Headquarters: Freiburg im Breisgau
> Register Court: Amtsgericht Freiburg im Breisgau, HRB 701080
> Managing Directors: Dr. med. Philipp Daumke, Dr. Kornél Markó
>
>