Hi,
sorry, I am quite busy these days. Could be that it will take some more
days until I can reply to your mail.
Best,
Peter
Am 15.03.2017 um 10:24 schrieb José Vicente Moyano Murillo:
> Great explanation Peter, we see all your comments.
> Maybe we are doing something wrong to accomplish our pourpouse.
>
> But regarding labels. Can we discuss this example?
>
> Document{ -> ADD(list, w1), ADD(list, w2), ADD(list, w3), ADD(list, w4),
> CREATE(Detection, "anchors" = list)} <- {
> w1:CW{w1.ct=="A" }
> %
> w2:CW{w2.ct=="B" }
> %
> w3:CW{w3.ct=="B" }
> %
> w4:CW{w4.ct=="A" };
> };
>
> In our mind conjuntion rules are aplyed using something like this pattern:
>
> FOR (PERMUTATION(w1, w2, w3, w4))
> IF(CONJUNCTION) -> THEN
>
>
> In other words we spect some kind of "interruption" to execute the THEN
> statement
>
> But it seems that right now, all the permutations are inspected and then
> the necessary annotations are created and, obviously, w1, w2, w3, w4 have
> the values of the last iteration.
>
> What do you think?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2017-03-13 18:05 GMT+01:00 Peter Klügl <[email protected]>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> Am 13.03.2017 um 17:41 schrieb José Vicente Moyano Murillo:
>>> From our point of view we would expect the same result using # or %
>> Yes, I thought the same, but after investigating the problem I changed
>> my mind a bit.
>> Even if we ignore the label expression overriding the values with 'X's,
>> there is still a difference. The wildcard # introduces a sequential
>> constraint, and the conjunction % does not. The former implies a match
>> only for the next occureence of a valid annotation. And the latter? I
>> would initially say that the match should not be restricted to the first
>> one, meaning the first rule element for example will match twice as does
>> the fourth rule element. This would result in four 'A's in the list
>> compared to the two for the wildcard.
>>
>> And there is also the difference that the execution of the action is
>> decoupled from the specific rule elements in the conjunct element
>> (causing the initial problem with the label expression)
>>
>>> In any case it is our idea and the truth is that we do not know how to
>>> predict the impact.
>> I can totally understand that. I had to debug the implementation myself
>> quite a bit in order to get to know what is going on. That does not
>> happen too often to me concerning ruta.
>>
>> I am open to suggestions how this situation can be improved. I am not
>> sure yet what should/can be done.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> 2017-03-13 10:56 GMT+01:00 Peter Klügl <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> there is a conceptual problem when using label expressions in those
>>>> conjunct rules. The label expression stores the value of the matched
>>>> annotations even if the rule element does not match. It has to since the
>>>> matched annotation may be used to validate the conditions as you do.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the value should be reset if the rule element does not match
>>>> correctly, but I have to investigate the consequences furhter before I
>>>> implement this change. Are there opinions?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you change the rule to not use the label expression in the action,
>>>> there still seems to be a problem with the conjunct rules. e.g. like:
>>>>
>>>> Document{ -> CREATE(Detection, "anchors" = list)} <- {
>>>> w1:CW{w1.ct=="A" -> ADD(list, CW)}
>>>> %
>>>> w2:CW{w2.ct=="B" -> ADD(list, CW)}
>>>> %
>>>> w3:CW{w3.ct=="B" -> ADD(list, CW)}
>>>> %
>>>> w4:CW{w4.ct=="A" -> ADD(list, CW)};
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This looks like a bug when validating the match itself depednent on the
>>>> element matches. I need to investigate that further...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll create a jira ticket for both.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 09.03.2017 um 11:23 schrieb José Vicente Moyano Murillo:
>>>>> Hi Peter
>>>>>
>>>>> We have prepared a short test with 2 methods.
>>>>> The first one is using #, the second one is using %
>>>>>
>>>>> We expect the same behaviour. But as you will see there are diferences.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> 2017-02-28 16:00 GMT+01:00 Peter Klügl <[email protected]
>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>:
>>>>>
>>>>> hmmm ok, maybe my example for testing the rule was too simple.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will create a more complex example and check the results
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 28.02.2017 um 15:38 schrieb José Vicente Moyano Murillo:
>>>>> > Hi Peter,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I'm sorry but this example does not work properly. It seems that
>>>>> it is a
>>>>> > problem regarding conjunction rules (%)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This is our test case and result.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > We have a book with 5 attributes
>>>>> > - name
>>>>> > - author
>>>>> > - pages
>>>>> > - ISBN
>>>>> > - Category
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The rule is validatin name and author.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > RUTA creates the annotation with the list but the list contains
>>>>> 20 times
>>>>> > the las attribute (Category).
>>>>> >
>>>>> > If we use # it works perfectly. But in general we must use %
>>>>> >
>>>>> > May be this information will help you.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Many thanks
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 2017-02-28 14:23 GMT+01:00 Peter Kluegl <[email protected]
>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Hi,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> operations directly on lists and arrays are on my todo list but
>>>>> not yet
>>>>> >> implemented.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Right now, there are still some options like a variable or
>>>>> restricted
>>>>> >> assignments.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Here's an example with an ANNOTATIONLIST variable:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> ANNOTATIONLIST list;
>>>>> >> Book{-> CREATE(NeilsBook, "attributes" = list)}<-{
>>>>> >> a1:Attribute{a1.name <http://a1.name>=="title",
>>>>> a1.ct=="Norse Mythology" ->
>>>>> >> ADD(list,a1)}
>>>>> >> % a2:Attribute{a2.name <http://a2.name>=="author",
>>>>> a2.ct=="Neil Gaiman" ->
>>>>> >> ADD(list,a2)};
>>>>> >> };
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Variables are global, so you need to clear the list maybe
>>>>> somewhere,
>>>>> >> e.g. before the first ADD.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> In the current trunk, something like the following is also
>>>>> possible:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Book{-> NeilsBook("attributes" = Attribute{OR(Attribute
>>>>> >> .name=="title", Attribute.name=="author")})}....
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Best,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Peter
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Am 28.02.2017 um 14:06 schrieb José Vicente Moyano Murillo:
>>>>> >>> Hi Peter, we have another question regarding the same example.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Right now all is working properly (many thanks) and it seems
>> that
>>>>> >>> 2.5.1-SNAPSHOT it's fine.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Now we are planning to store some information in the created
>>>>> annotation.
>>>>> >> We
>>>>> >>> want to store all the attributes that matches the RUTA rule.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> It is possible to store a1 and a2 in a feature (attributes) of
>>>>> NeilsBook?
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> The example:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Book{-> NeilsBook}<-{
>>>>> >>> a1:Attribute{a1.name <http://a1.name>=="title",
>>>>> a1.ct=="Norse Mythology"}
>>>>> >>> %
>>>>> >>> a2:Attribute{a2.name <http://a2.name>=="author", a2.ct=="Neil
>>>>> Gaiman"};
>>>>> >>> };
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> We are using this aproach:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Book{-> NeilsBook("attributes" = Attribute )}<-{
>>>>> >>> a1:Attribute{a1.name <http://a1.name>=="title",
>>>>> a1.ct=="Norse Mythology"}
>>>>> >>> %
>>>>> >>> a2:Attribute{a2.name <http://a2.name>=="author", a2.ct=="Neil
>>>>> Gaiman"};
>>>>> >>> };
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> This example works but it is storing all the annotations
>>>>> "Attribute"
>>>>> >>> covered by "Book" and we just want the attributes that matches
>>>>> the rule.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> 2017-02-24 10:29 GMT+01:00 José Vicente Moyano Murillo
>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>> Many thanks Peter ¡¡¡
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> 2017-02-24 9:46 GMT+01:00 Peter Klügl
>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Hi,
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> the repo:
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> <repository>
>>>>> >>>>> <id>apache.snapshots</id>
>>>>> >>>>> <name>Apache Snapshot Repository</name>
>>>>> >>>>> <url>http://repository.apache.org/snapshots
>>>>> <http://repository.apache.org/snapshots></url>
>>>>> >>>>> <releases>
>>>>> >>>>> <enabled>false</enabled>
>>>>> >>>>> </releases>
>>>>> >>>>> </repository>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> the folder:
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots/org/a
>>>>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots/org/a>
>>>>> >>>>> pache/uima/ruta-core/2.5.1-SNAPSHOT/
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Best,
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Peter
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Am 23.02.2017 um 13:47 schrieb José Vicente Moyano Murillo:
>>>>> >>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> ruta-core.jar it's enough.
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> It will be fantastic if i could access the snapshot
>>>> repository.
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> 2017-02-23 13:03 GMT+01:00 Peter Klügl
>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>:
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> what do you need? Only ruta-core.jar or also the Eclipse
>>>>> >> plugins/update
>>>>> >>>>>>> site?
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> I will prepare a new RC for the next release soon.
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> There should be snapshot artifacts built by jenkins in the
>>>>> snapshot
>>>>> >>>>>>> repository. I am out-of-office today so do not have the
>>>>> link right
>>>>> >>>>> now. (If
>>>>> >>>>>>> you want to build it yourself, the svn source repo can be
>>>>> accessed by
>>>>> >>>>>>> anyone)
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> Best,
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 23.02.2017 um 08:06 schrieb José Vicente Moyano Murillo:
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Peter, good morning.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>> Have we any opportunity to get a fixed version? I mean a
>>>>> snapshot or
>>>>> >>>>> an
>>>>> >>>>>>>> access to the repo.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2017-02-22 10:38 GMT+01:00 José Vicente Moyano Murillo <
>>>>> >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>:
>>>>> >>>>>>>> you're right
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> % is performing some kind of "or".
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So we will wait for the new release.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Many thanks
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2017-02-22 9:54 GMT+01:00 Peter Klügl
>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I actually wonder why your rules work. I am quite sure
>>>>> that they
>>>>> >>>>> match
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> too often, i. e. they match also if only one of the
>>>>> conjunct rule
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> elements match.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You can simply try that by using a wrong string in the
>>>>> check like
>>>>> >>>>> "NG"
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> instead of "Neil Gaiman"
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anyways, the problem will be fixed in a few minutes and
>>>>> will be
>>>>> >>>>> part of
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the next release.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Am 22.02.2017 um 09:38 schrieb Peter Klügl:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. Maybe its just a bug in 2.5.0 I already fixed.
>>>>> I'll
>>>>> >>>>> investigate
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Am 22.02.2017 um 09:24 schrieb José Vicente Moyano
>>>>> Murillo:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much Peter. Your advice was amazing.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We tried the first option using Conjunct rules and as
>>>>> you said
>>>>> >> it
>>>>> >>>>> does
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> work with version 2.5.0. But we change a little your
>>>>> example and
>>>>> >> it
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> works
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> perfectly witn 2.4.0 and 2.5.0
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We use theses examples with success:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> DECLARE Annotation RuleDetection;
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Book{ -> CREATE(NeilsBook) } <- {
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Attribute{Attribute.name=="title",
>>>>> Attribute.ct=="Norse
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Mythology"}"
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> %
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Attribute{Attribute.name=="author",
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Attribute.ct=="Neil
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gaiman"};"
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> DECLARE Annotation RuleDetection;
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Book{ -> CREATE(NeilsBook) } <- {
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Attribute{FEATURE("name","title"),
>>>>> FEATURE("ct", "Norse
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Mythology")}"
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> %
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Attribute{FEATURE("name","author"),
>>>>> >> FEATURE("ct",
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Neil
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gaiman")};
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> DECLARE Annotation RuleDetection;
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Book{ -> CREATE(NeilsBook) } <- {
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Attribute{Attribute.name=="title",
>>>>> Attribute.ct=="Norse
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Mythology"}"
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> %
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Attribute{FEATURE("name","author"),
>>>>> >> FEATURE("ct",
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Neil
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gaiman")};
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> May be the problem is with when we use Identifiers:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> a1:Attribute and a2:Attribute
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In any case thank you very much for your help.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-02-21 17:46 GMT+01:00 Peter Klügl <
>>>>> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>> >>>>>> :
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd normally say that you need the conjunt rules
>>>>> construct to
>>>>> >>>>> specify
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> AND between two rule element independent of the
>> position:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Book{-> NeilsBook}<-{
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a1:Attribute{a1.name <http://a1.name>=="title",
>>>>> a1.ct=="Norse Mythology"}
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> % a2:Attribute{a2.name
>>>>> <http://a2.name>=="author", a2.ct=="Neil Gaiman"};
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I just noted that there is a problem with
>>>>> conjunct
>>>>> >>>>> rules. I
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't used it in a long time and the test coverage
>>>>> much lower
>>>>> >>>>> than
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> other constructs. I'll create a ticket for it and fix
>> it.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Without conjunct rules, you need some boolean
>>>>> variables for
>>>>> >>>>> cheking
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> AND, which looks all but declarative:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> BOOLEAN ft, fa;
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> FOREACH(book) Book{}{
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> book{-> ft = false, fa = false};
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> book->{a1:Attribute{a1.name
>>>>> <http://a1.name>=="title", a1.ct=="Norse
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mythology"->
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ft=true};};
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> book->{a2:Attribute{a2.name
>>>>> <http://a2.name>=="author", a2.ct=="Neil
>>>>> >>>>> Gaiman"->
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fa=true};};
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> book{ft,fa -> NeilsBook};
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ... or with a BLOCK...
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> BLOCK(book) Book{}{
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Document{-> ft = false, fa = false};
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a1:Attribute{a1.name <http://a1.name>=="title",
>>>>> a1.ct=="Norse Mythology"->
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ft=true};
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> a2:Attribute{a2.name <http://a2.name>=="author",
>>>>> a2.ct=="Neil Gaiman"->
>>>>> >>>>> fa=true};
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Document{ft,fa -> NeilsBook};
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If the order of the attributes is known, you can
>>>>> avoid the AND
>>>>> >>>>> check
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> just specify a sequential constraint:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Book{-> NeilsBook}<-{
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a1:Attribute{a1.name <http://a1.name>=="title",
>>>>> a1.ct=="Norse Mythology"}
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> # a2:Attribute{a2.name
>>>>> <http://a2.name>=="author", a2.ct=="Neil Gaiman"};
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you need to check on the complete title with the
>>>>> URL, you
>>>>> >> can
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> replace
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the coveredText comparison with a REGEXP condition.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (tested with UIMA Ruta 2.5.0)
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 21.02.2017 um 13:58 schrieb José Vicente Moyano
>>>>> Murillo:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm planning to use RUTA to create some
>>>>> annotations. But i'm
>>>>> >> not
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> accomplish my objective.
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is my case right now:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a text annotated with some annotations
>>>> "*Book*".
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Under "*Book*" annotation i have a few annotations
>>>>> >> "*Attribute*"
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stores some information about the book. Each
>>>>> "*Attribute*"
>>>>> >> has a
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *name*" and a feature "*parent*" to its parent (one
>>>>> "*Book*"
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> annotation).
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And example could be a text with 2 "*Book*"
>> annotations:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "*Book*" annotation number 1 with 3 nested
>> attributes
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.- *Attribute* with name feature equals "title" ->
>>>>> covered
>>>>> >>>>> text:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Norse
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Mythology
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/norse-mythology-neil-
>>>>> <http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/norse-mythology-neil->
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> gaiman/1124023596;jsessionid=FD1D8F9690602616CA59B38CFE9290
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 06.prodny_store02-atgap08?ean=9780393609097>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.- *Attribute* with name feature equals "author"
>>>>> -> covered
>>>>> >>>>> text:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Neil
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Gaiman"
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.- *Attribute* with name feature equals "language"
>> -
>>>>> >> covered
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> text:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "English"
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "*Book*" annotation number 2 with 3 nested
>> attributes
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.- *Attribute* with name feature equals "title" ->
>>>>> covered
>>>>> >>>>> text:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Never
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Never
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/never-never-james-patterson
>>>>> <http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/never-never-james-patterson>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> /1123863634;
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> jsessionid=FD1D8F9690602616CA59B38CFE929006.prodny_store02-
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> atgap08?ean=
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 9780316433174>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.- *Attribute* with name feature equals "author"
>>>>> -> covered
>>>>> >>>>> text:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "James
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Patterson"
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.- *Attribute* with name feature equals "language"
>> -
>>>>> >> covered
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> text:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "English"
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I need to respect this schema but i have this
>>>> question:
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is possible to create and annotation over a book
>>>>> for a
>>>>> >> given
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> author
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a given title name?
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank's in advance
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
