Hi, On 25.04.2013 19:16, William Karl Thompson wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Many thanks! I was just about to try it out before reading your latest > email. Should I check out the latest trunk version from the svn repository > tomorrow?
I fixed most problems and committed the changes together with two example projects (in https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/trunk/example-projects): textmarker-ep-example-extensions contains two parts: the implementation of an action (ExampleAction) and the integration in the ide. That's the reason, why it is a maven eclipse-plugin project. ExtensionsExample is a simple textmarker project, which uses the extension. The syntax check in the Workbench is not yet correctly integrated. It will take a while until I will be able to write the documentation for the extensions. Just let me know, if any problems occur. Best, Peter Btw: I am also involved in a project about information extraction in clinical texts. That's a quite active area ;-) > In terms of feature requests, I appreciate your willingness to consider > extensions. My strategy will be to try accomplishing a few tasks first, to > see what can be abstracted that is of sufficient generality. As background > info, I am creating some NLP applications for clinical text using cTAKES, and > I think TextMarker is a nice option to have for rule-based alternatives to > certain tasks (like relating two annotations to each other, DiseaseDisorder > and AnatomicalLocation in the same sentence). The current cTAKES relation > extractor is based on machine learning, and requires an annotated corpus for > training, whereas sometimes it's just easier to create a set of rules. > > Cheers, > > Will > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Klügl [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:49 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions > > Hi, > > I checked the language extensions and unfortunately they do not work right > now. There are some small bugs, but they will be fixed tomorrow. > > Best, > > Peter > > Am 25.04.2013 11:37, schrieb Peter Klügl: >> Hi, >> >> Am 25.04.2013 03:29, schrieb William Karl Thompson: >>> Hello, >>> >>> (My apologies, I mistakenly sent this to the dev list initially) >>> >>> I'm very interested in using the TextMarker project, but the current >>> set of action types doesn't quite do what I need. I found references >>> to an extension mechanism, have also found the >>> ITextMarkerActionExtension interface in the source code. I also found >>> the antlr grammar and lexer files where the TextMarker language is >>> defined, which appears to be where new action type names are to be >>> added. So I surmise the steps to add new actions is to >>> >>> >>> 1. Add the desired action signature to the antlr grammar >>> >>> 2. Define an implementation of ITextMarkerActionExtension that >>> implements the functionality. >>> >>> Is there an easier way to do this? My concern is that I need to >>> modify TextMarker source files (the grammar and lexer files), which >>> would be overwritten on any updated version of TextMarker. >> This should be possible without changing any textmarker code. >> >> There is a generic parsing rule in the grammar, which creates an >> external action using the set of ITextMarkerExtension mentioned in the >> descriptor (parameter: additionalExtensions). There is no default >> syntax check since the possible arguments are of course not yet known >> by the engine. Syntax checks need to be implemented in the >> ITextMarkerActionExtension.createAction(), which throws an >> ANTLRException. The arguments of the action are delegated to this >> method, which return the action implementation, so there will probably >> many casts and "if instanceOf" checks. Language constructs like >> assignments ("feature" = Type) known by the CREATE action, are not yet >> supported. >> >> Unfortunately, there is no automatic integration in the workbench yet. >> You have to modify the BasicEngine (add the extension) in the >> textmarker project yourself. The implemenatation of the extension >> needs of course then also be available to the workbench. >> >> I haven't used the language extensions since 2009 (it was a wordnet >> integration) and they are not yet covered by unit tests. So, there are >> maybe some bugs due to the changes after the contribution to Apache >> UIMA. However, I will check the functionality, add a test case and >> extend the documentation. >> >> Concerning the list of available actions: You are of course also >> welcome to create feature requests for new actions. The current set of >> actions is mainly based on my own requirements and I will gladly add >> new reasonable/generic actions (within the limits of my available time). >> >> Best, >> >> Peter >> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Will Thompson >>>
