[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-2758?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13655315#comment-13655315
 ] 

Richard Eckart de Castilho commented on UIMA-2758:
--------------------------------------------------

It may be possible to mitigate the problem via the "aliases". Since you can 
import a type "my.namespace.Type" as "MyType" now, you could assume that 
MyType.feature always refer to a feature. You could use some quoting mechanism 
to keep the "." operator unambiguous (which I think is important). E.g. one 
could write 'my.namespace.Type'.feature or {my.namespace.Type}.feature or 
something like that. Its probably not a good idea that the "." operator can be 
a package separator and a "navigate to feature value" operator at the same 
time. Just imagine somebody would define a type "my.namespace" with a feature 
"Type" and at the same time a type "my.namespace.Type"...
                
> TextMarker: Provide support for tree structures and parse trees in rule 
> language
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: UIMA-2758
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-2758
>             Project: UIMA
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: ruta
>            Reporter: Peter Klügl
>            Assignee: Peter Klügl
>
> Manipulation of features which refer to annotations and matching on simple 
> features is currently supported, but matching on the complex values of some 
> feature is not. A first step can be something like (Type Person with feature 
> "title" of type Annotation):
> Person.title;
> This rule matches on all annotations, which are values of features of 
> annotations of the type Person.
> This new language element can also be used for syntactic sugar when checking 
> primitive feature values:
> Person.begin=0 (A Person annotation, which starts a offset 0)
> This can only be a first step towards supporting tree structures. Maybe there 
> is no way around something for explicitly and directly referring to certain 
> annotations (which is not possible right now, but is done by using the type).

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Reply via email to