Hi,

could you open an issue and attach it there? That would be great.

Best,

Peter

Am 24.02.2015 um 18:13 schrieb Silvestre Losada:
Hi Peter,

The problem happens if the Annotations are created by external analysis
engine, using something like this

ENGINE TestAE;
Document{-> EXEC(TestAE,{TestType})};
(TestType{-> UNMARKALL(TestType)}){PARTOFNEQ(TestType)};

It seems that  ExecAction is removing the Type form RutaBasic.partOf array
at some point of the execution. After that in PartOfNeqCondition in method
check next condition is always returning false because the Type was removed
previously from ruta basic.

     boolean partOf = beginAnchor.isPartOf(t) || endAnchor.isPartOf(t);
     if (!partOf) {
       return false;
     }

I have uima ruta test project that reproduces the error I can send to you
in zip file.

Best.

On 20 February 2015 at 20:41, Peter Klügl <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi,

hmmm, that's strange. When I apply the rules on the document "A B C D",
only one T1 annotation remains.

On which document did you test the rules?

Best,

Peter

Am 20.02.2015 um 09:17 schrieb Silvestre Losada:

  HI again,
Now I'm running into this problem
DECLARE T1;
"A B C D" -> T1;
"B" -> T1;
"C D" -> T1;
"D" -> T1;

(T1{-> UNMARKALL(T1)}){PARTOFNEQ(T1)};

The ouput is
"A B C D" -> T1;
"D" -> T1;

I suspect that this is because D is part of "A B C D" and "C D"

Im using lastest version in trunk.


Kind regards

On 14 February 2015 at 09:29, Silvestre Losada <
[email protected]>
wrote:

  Thanks Peter,

It seems to work.

On 13 February 2015 at 22:18, Peter Klügl <[email protected]>
wrote:

  This should work just fine and should remove both contained annotations.
I just tested it with the current trunk and the following script:

DECLARE T1;
"A B" -> T1;
"B" -> T1;
"B" -> T1;

(T1{-> UNMARK(T1)}){PARTOFNEQ(T1)};

If applied on the test "A B", only the largest annotation remains.

Can you test it with the current trunk in case I fixed the bug a few
minutes ago by accident. If not, can you give me more information about
the
context of your rule?

Best,

Peter

Am 12.02.2015 um 10:12 schrieb Silvestre Losada:

   I dont know if this is a bug or if it is wokring well. I have the

following
annotations.

AnnotationA
        begin:0
        ends:8
         id:1
AnnotationA
        begin:4
        ends:8
         id:2
AnnotationA
        begin: 4
        ends:8
         id:3

Then if apply the following ruta

(AnnotationA{-> UNMARK(AnnotationA)}){PARTOFNEQ(AnnotationA)};

The output is
AnnotationA
        begin:0
        ends:8
         id:1
AnnotationA
        begin: 4
        ends:8
         id:3

I expect that annotations with id 2 and 3 will be removed. Is there any
way
to remove both

Kind regards




Reply via email to