[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-2758?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13655321#comment-13655321
]
Peter Klügl commented on UIMA-2758:
-----------------------------------
I actually prefer an ambiguous operator :-) (I have to think about a solution
for the equal type/feature problem)
Parsing works already, but the inference has still many bugs. The syntax is
right now:
{noformat}
PACKAGE uima.ruta.example;
DECLARE Annotation A(STRING s);
DECLARE Annotation C(A a);
(W{ -> CREATE(A, "s" = "Name")} COMMA W PERIOD W PERIOD){-> CREATE(C, "a" = A)};
ANY C.a{IS(A)} COMMA;
C.a COMMA;
C.a.s=="Name";
{noformat}
> TextMarker: Provide support for tree structures and parse trees in rule
> language
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: UIMA-2758
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-2758
> Project: UIMA
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: ruta
> Reporter: Peter Klügl
> Assignee: Peter Klügl
>
> Manipulation of features which refer to annotations and matching on simple
> features is currently supported, but matching on the complex values of some
> feature is not. A first step can be something like (Type Person with feature
> "title" of type Annotation):
> Person.title;
> This rule matches on all annotations, which are values of features of
> annotations of the type Person.
> This new language element can also be used for syntactic sugar when checking
> primitive feature values:
> Person.begin=0 (A Person annotation, which starts a offset 0)
> This can only be a first step towards supporting tree structures. Maybe there
> is no way around something for explicitly and directly referring to certain
> annotations (which is not possible right now, but is done by using the type).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
