Thank you. I try to take a look at it this weekend.
Best,
Peter
Am 27.02.2015 um 14:40 schrieb Silvestre Losada:
Hi,
I submited a patch with a solution for the error reported
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4261
Best
On 25 February 2015 at 10:41, Silvestre Losada <[email protected]>
wrote:
Done
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4261
On 24 February 2015 at 19:35, Peter Klügl <[email protected]>
wrote:
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
