Hi Peter,
Thank you for your reply
> at the end you need to check both, but you could maybe refactor the
> checks in a new condition like (not tested):
>
> CONDITION LemmaCT(ANNOTATION word, STRING check) = OR(word.lemma ==
> check, word.ct == check);
>
> w: Word{LemmaCT(w, "gearbeitet")};
>
>
Hi,
at the end you need to check both, but you could maybe refactor the
checks in a new condition like (not tested):
CONDITION LemmaCT(ANNOTATION word, STRING check) = OR(word.lemma ==
check, word.ct == check);
w: Word{LemmaCT(w, "gearbeitet")};
... or with two string arguments for different
Hi Peter,
Thank you for the answer.
> that mainly depends on the typesystem. Your rule could look something
like:
>
>
> w:Word{OR(w.lemma == "arbeiten", w.ct == "gearbeitet")};
I know of this syntax. My question is whether there is a shorter form to
tell than whenever I need to match word text,
Hi,
that mainly depends on the typesystem. Your rule could look something like:
w:Word{OR(w.lemma == "arbeiten", w.ct == "gearbeitet")};
Best,
Peter
Am 03.05.2019 um 18:28 schrieb Nikolai Krot:
Hi Peter,
Thank you for your prompt reply.
Speaking about pre-annotation with another
Hi,
there is/was support for a weighted edit distance in the trie lookup,
but that functionality was not maintained for many years.
The dictionary lookup functionality in Ruta is overall very limited.
Normally, one uses an separate analysis engine with extended logic
(ConceptMapper?) for
