RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
You are fast -- I'll update and give it a try!
-Original Message-
From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 11:30 AM
To: user@uima.apache.org
Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
Hi,
feature assignments for simple regexp rules are now part of the trunk.
RegExpRuleTest.ruta contains an example and the documentation describes the
exact syntax.
Best,
Peter
On 08.05.2013 17:56, William Karl Thompson wrote:
> Many thanks!
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 2:57 AM
> To: user@uima.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>
> Hi,
>
> I will create a feature request and see when I find the time to implement it.
>
> Best,
>
> Peter
>
> On 08.05.2013 04:38, William Karl Thompson wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> What you proposed would work fine for what I was trying to do!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Will
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 3:42 AM
>> To: user@uima.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 06.05.2013 18:26, William Karl Thompson wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> I like the simplified regular expression rule syntax -- very handy. It's
>>> almost exactly what I wanted. However, one thing I'm wondering is how to
>>> create an annotation with features using such rules. I have in mind
>>> something like the following:
>>>
>>> "(regex string)" -> 1 = CREATE(FooType, "feat" = "bar");
>>>
>>> Here's a possible variant of the above that I can imagine would be useful
>>> too:
>>>
>>> "(regex) (string)" -> CREATE(FooType, "feat1" = GROUP(1),
>>> "feat2"=GROUP(2));
>>>
>>> What are your thoughts on this?
>> I think I won't be able to use the existing code of the CREATE action for
>> this and it will also be problematic in the grammar without creating a new
>> context.
>>
>> What about something like:
>>
>> "(regexp) (string)" -> Type1, 1 = Type2 ("feat" = 2);
>>
>> This will of course not work with numeric feature values, but there isn't an
>> auto-cast anyway...
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Will
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: William Karl Thompson
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 1:49 PM
>>> To: user@uima.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>>>
>>> Vielen Dank, Ich werde es probieren.
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:42 PM
>>> To: user@uima.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>>>
>>> Am 02.05.2013 19:16, schrieb William Karl Thompson:
>>>> I see you're way ahead of me! I'll take a look at this -- is it in the
>>>> latest on trunk?
>>> Yes, and there is also a unit test (if you are interested in some
>>> ready-to-work examples):
>>> org.apache.uima.ruta.RegExpRuleTest.java(.ruta,
>>> .txt)
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:14 PM
>>>> To: user@uima.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> oh, I am afraid I recently added something like that for the 2.0.1
>>>> release, not yet included in the 2.0.0 release. This does not mean
>>>> that I would not include the action in UIMA Ruta ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Here the excerpt of the documentation:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Simple Rules based on Regular Expressions
>>>>
>>>> The Ruta language includes, additionally to the normal rules, a
>>>> simplified rule syntax for processing regular expressions.
>>>> These simple rules consist of two parts separated by
>>>> ->: The left part is the regular expression
>>>> (flags: DOTALL and MULTILINE), which may contain capturing groups.
>&g
RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
Many thanks!
-Original Message-
From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 2:57 AM
To: user@uima.apache.org
Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
Hi,
I will create a feature request and see when I find the time to implement it.
Best,
Peter
On 08.05.2013 04:38, William Karl Thompson wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> What you proposed would work fine for what I was trying to do!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Will
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 3:42 AM
> To: user@uima.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>
> Hi,
>
> On 06.05.2013 18:26, William Karl Thompson wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> I like the simplified regular expression rule syntax -- very handy. It's
>> almost exactly what I wanted. However, one thing I'm wondering is how to
>> create an annotation with features using such rules. I have in mind
>> something like the following:
>>
>> "(regex string)" -> 1 = CREATE(FooType, "feat" = "bar");
>>
>> Here's a possible variant of the above that I can imagine would be useful
>> too:
>>
>> "(regex) (string)" -> CREATE(FooType, "feat1" = GROUP(1),
>> "feat2"=GROUP(2));
>>
>> What are your thoughts on this?
> I think I won't be able to use the existing code of the CREATE action for
> this and it will also be problematic in the grammar without creating a new
> context.
>
> What about something like:
>
> "(regexp) (string)" -> Type1, 1 = Type2 ("feat" = 2);
>
> This will of course not work with numeric feature values, but there isn't an
> auto-cast anyway...
>
> Best,
>
> Peter
>
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Will
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: William Karl Thompson
>> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 1:49 PM
>> To: user@uima.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>>
>> Vielen Dank, Ich werde es probieren.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:42 PM
>> To: user@uima.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>>
>> Am 02.05.2013 19:16, schrieb William Karl Thompson:
>>> I see you're way ahead of me! I'll take a look at this -- is it in the
>>> latest on trunk?
>> Yes, and there is also a unit test (if you are interested in some
>> ready-to-work examples):
>> org.apache.uima.ruta.RegExpRuleTest.java(.ruta,
>> .txt)
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:14 PM
>>> To: user@uima.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> oh, I am afraid I recently added something like that for the 2.0.1
>>> release, not yet included in the 2.0.0 release. This does not mean
>>> that I would not include the action in UIMA Ruta ;-)
>>>
>>> Here the excerpt of the documentation:
>>>
>>>
>>> Simple Rules based on Regular Expressions
>>>
>>> The Ruta language includes, additionally to the normal rules, a
>>> simplified rule syntax for processing regular expressions.
>>> These simple rules consist of two parts separated by
>>> ->: The left part is the regular expression
>>> (flags: DOTALL and MULTILINE), which may contain capturing groups.
>>> The right part defines, which kind of annotations
>>> should be created for each match of the regular expression. If a
>>> type is given without a group index, then an annotation of that type is
>>> created for the complete regular expression match, which
>>> corresponds to group 0. These simple rules can be restricted to match only
>>> within
>>> certain annotations using the BLOCK construct, and ignore all
>>> filtering settings.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The following example contains a simple rule, which is able to
>>> create annotations of two different types. It creates an annotation
>>> of the type T1 for each match of the complete
>>> regular expression and an annotation
>>> of the type T2 for each match of the fir
RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
Hi Peter,
What you proposed would work fine for what I was trying to do!
Cheers,
Will
-Original Message-
From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 3:42 AM
To: user@uima.apache.org
Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
Hi,
On 06.05.2013 18:26, William Karl Thompson wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> I like the simplified regular expression rule syntax -- very handy. It's
> almost exactly what I wanted. However, one thing I'm wondering is how to
> create an annotation with features using such rules. I have in mind something
> like the following:
>
> "(regex string)" -> 1 = CREATE(FooType, "feat" = "bar");
>
> Here's a possible variant of the above that I can imagine would be useful
> too:
>
> "(regex) (string)" -> CREATE(FooType, "feat1" = GROUP(1),
> "feat2"=GROUP(2));
>
> What are your thoughts on this?
I think I won't be able to use the existing code of the CREATE action for this
and it will also be problematic in the grammar without creating a new context.
What about something like:
"(regexp) (string)" -> Type1, 1 = Type2 ("feat" = 2);
This will of course not work with numeric feature values, but there isn't an
auto-cast anyway...
Best,
Peter
>
> Cheers,
>
> Will
>
> -Original Message-
> From: William Karl Thompson
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 1:49 PM
> To: user@uima.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>
> Vielen Dank, Ich werde es probieren.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:42 PM
> To: user@uima.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>
> Am 02.05.2013 19:16, schrieb William Karl Thompson:
>> I see you're way ahead of me! I'll take a look at this -- is it in the
>> latest on trunk?
> Yes, and there is also a unit test (if you are interested in some
> ready-to-work examples):
> org.apache.uima.ruta.RegExpRuleTest.java(.ruta,
> .txt)
>
> Peter
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:14 PM
>> To: user@uima.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> oh, I am afraid I recently added something like that for the 2.0.1
>> release, not yet included in the 2.0.0 release. This does not mean
>> that I would not include the action in UIMA Ruta ;-)
>>
>> Here the excerpt of the documentation:
>>
>>
>> Simple Rules based on Regular Expressions
>>
>> The Ruta language includes, additionally to the normal rules, a
>> simplified rule syntax for processing regular expressions.
>> These simple rules consist of two parts separated by
>> ->: The left part is the regular expression
>> (flags: DOTALL and MULTILINE), which may contain capturing groups.
>> The right part defines, which kind of annotations
>> should be created for each match of the regular expression. If a
>> type is given without a group index, then an annotation of that type is
>> created for the complete regular expression match, which corresponds
>> to group 0. These simple rules can be restricted to match only within
>> certain annotations using the BLOCK construct, and ignore all
>> filtering settings.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The following example contains a simple rule, which is able to
>> create annotations of two different types. It creates an annotation
>> of the type T1 for each match of the complete regular
>> expression and an annotation
>> of the type T2 for each match of the first capturing
>> group.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 02.05.2013 19:06, schrieb William Karl Thompson:
>>> I forgot to mention, the numeric argument in the proposed MARKREGEXP action
>>> indicates which capturing group is to be used from regular expression to
>>> generate the region for the annotation of the specified type.
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: William Karl Thompson
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:02 PM
>>> To: user@uima.apache.org
>>> Subject: RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>>>
>>> Peter,
>>>
>>> Thanks for helping me to get going on this, it now works like a charm! Have
RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
Hi Peter,
I like the simplified regular expression rule syntax -- very handy. It's almost
exactly what I wanted. However, one thing I'm wondering is how to create an
annotation with features using such rules. I have in mind something like the
following:
"(regex string)" -> 1 = CREATE(FooType, "feat" = "bar");
Here's a possible variant of the above that I can imagine would be useful too:
"(regex) (string)" -> CREATE(FooType, "feat1" = GROUP(1), "feat2"=GROUP(2));
What are your thoughts on this?
Cheers,
Will
-Original Message-
From: William Karl Thompson
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 1:49 PM
To: user@uima.apache.org
Subject: RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
Vielen Dank, Ich werde es probieren.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:42 PM
To: user@uima.apache.org
Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
Am 02.05.2013 19:16, schrieb William Karl Thompson:
> I see you're way ahead of me! I'll take a look at this -- is it in the latest
> on trunk?
Yes, and there is also a unit test (if you are interested in some ready-to-work
examples): org.apache.uima.ruta.RegExpRuleTest.java(.ruta,
.txt)
Peter
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:14 PM
> To: user@uima.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>
> Hi,
>
> oh, I am afraid I recently added something like that for the 2.0.1
> release, not yet included in the 2.0.0 release. This does not mean
> that I would not include the action in UIMA Ruta ;-)
>
> Here the excerpt of the documentation:
>
>
> Simple Rules based on Regular Expressions
>
> The Ruta language includes, additionally to the normal rules, a
> simplified rule syntax for processing regular expressions.
> These simple rules consist of two parts separated by
> ->: The left part is the regular expression
> (flags: DOTALL and MULTILINE), which may contain capturing groups.
> The right part defines, which kind of annotations
> should be created for each match of the regular expression. If a type
> is given without a group index, then an annotation of that type is
> created for the complete regular expression match, which corresponds
> to group 0. These simple rules can be restricted to match only within
> certain annotations using the BLOCK construct, and ignore all
> filtering settings.
>
>
>
>
>
> The following example contains a simple rule, which is able to create
> annotations of two different types. It creates an annotation
> of the type T1 for each match of the complete regular
> expression and an annotation
> of the type T2 for each match of the first capturing
> group.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 02.05.2013 19:06, schrieb William Karl Thompson:
>> I forgot to mention, the numeric argument in the proposed MARKREGEXP action
>> indicates which capturing group is to be used from regular expression to
>> generate the region for the annotation of the specified type.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: William Karl Thompson
>> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:02 PM
>> To: user@uima.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> Thanks for helping me to get going on this, it now works like a charm! Have
>> been able to generate extensions and have them be recognized by the Eclipse
>> IDE as per your instructions. Very nice!
>>
>> In the process of doing this, I do have an idea for a possibly useful action
>> to be added to the current set. The basic idea is implement functionality
>> similar to that found in the RegularExpressionAnnotator that is one of the
>> UIMA addons:
>>
>> http://uima.apache.org/sandbox.html#regex.annotator
>>
>> This allows you to define a set of regular expression matches, and to mark
>> an annotation on the region covered by the match, restricted if desired by a
>> capturing group within the regular expression. The way I implemented it
>> experimentally was like the following:
>>
>> Sentence{->MARKREGEXP(TypeExpression, "(?i)(ascending colon) polyps",
>> 1}; NP{PARTOF(FindingsSection)->MARKREGEXP(TypeExpression,
>> "(?i)tubular adenoma", 0)};
>>
>> The key thing is that the regular expression matching is using the
>> equivalent of java.util.regex.Matcher.find(), unlike the current
>> implementa
RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
Vielen Dank, Ich werde es probieren.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:42 PM
To: user@uima.apache.org
Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
Am 02.05.2013 19:16, schrieb William Karl Thompson:
> I see you're way ahead of me! I'll take a look at this -- is it in the latest
> on trunk?
Yes, and there is also a unit test (if you are interested in some ready-to-work
examples): org.apache.uima.ruta.RegExpRuleTest.java(.ruta,
.txt)
Peter
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:14 PM
> To: user@uima.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>
> Hi,
>
> oh, I am afraid I recently added something like that for the 2.0.1
> release, not yet included in the 2.0.0 release. This does not mean
> that I would not include the action in UIMA Ruta ;-)
>
> Here the excerpt of the documentation:
>
>
> Simple Rules based on Regular Expressions
>
> The Ruta language includes, additionally to the normal rules, a
> simplified rule syntax for processing regular expressions.
> These simple rules consist of two parts separated by
> ->: The left part is the regular expression
> (flags: DOTALL and MULTILINE), which may contain capturing groups.
> The right part defines, which kind of annotations
> should be created for each match of the regular expression. If a type
> is given without a group index, then an annotation of that type is
> created for the complete regular expression match, which corresponds
> to group 0. These simple rules can be restricted to match only within
> certain annotations using the BLOCK construct, and ignore all
> filtering settings.
>
>
>
>
>
> The following example contains a simple rule, which is able to create
> annotations of two different types. It creates an annotation
> of the type T1 for each match of the complete regular
> expression and an annotation
> of the type T2 for each match of the first capturing
> group.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 02.05.2013 19:06, schrieb William Karl Thompson:
>> I forgot to mention, the numeric argument in the proposed MARKREGEXP action
>> indicates which capturing group is to be used from regular expression to
>> generate the region for the annotation of the specified type.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: William Karl Thompson
>> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:02 PM
>> To: user@uima.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>>
>> Peter,
>>
>> Thanks for helping me to get going on this, it now works like a charm! Have
>> been able to generate extensions and have them be recognized by the Eclipse
>> IDE as per your instructions. Very nice!
>>
>> In the process of doing this, I do have an idea for a possibly useful action
>> to be added to the current set. The basic idea is implement functionality
>> similar to that found in the RegularExpressionAnnotator that is one of the
>> UIMA addons:
>>
>> http://uima.apache.org/sandbox.html#regex.annotator
>>
>> This allows you to define a set of regular expression matches, and to mark
>> an annotation on the region covered by the match, restricted if desired by a
>> capturing group within the regular expression. The way I implemented it
>> experimentally was like the following:
>>
>> Sentence{->MARKREGEXP(TypeExpression, "(?i)(ascending colon) polyps",
>> 1}; NP{PARTOF(FindingsSection)->MARKREGEXP(TypeExpression,
>> "(?i)tubular adenoma", 0)};
>>
>> The key thing is that the regular expression matching is using the
>> equivalent of java.util.regex.Matcher.find(), unlike the current
>> implementation of the REGEXP condition, which uses match():
>>
>> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/regex/Matcher.
>> h
>> tml#find()
>>
>> Anyway, thanks again for your help getting this all working.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Will
>>
>>
>> From: Peter Klügl [pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 4:20 PM
>> To: user@uima.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am 29.04.2013 20:22, schrieb William Karl Thompson:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> I've updated and built the TextMarker projects, but now I'm spinning my
>>
RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
I see you're way ahead of me! I'll take a look at this -- is it in the latest
on trunk?
-Original Message-
From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:14 PM
To: user@uima.apache.org
Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
Hi,
oh, I am afraid I recently added something like that for the 2.0.1 release, not
yet included in the 2.0.0 release. This does not mean that I would not include
the action in UIMA Ruta ;-)
Here the excerpt of the documentation:
Simple Rules based on Regular Expressions
The Ruta language includes, additionally to the normal rules, a
simplified rule syntax for processing regular expressions.
These simple rules consist of two parts separated by
->: The left part is the regular expression
(flags: DOTALL and MULTILINE), which may contain capturing groups. The
right part defines, which kind of annotations
should be created for each match of the regular expression. If a type is
given without a group index, then an annotation of that type is
created for the complete regular expression match, which corresponds to
group 0. These simple rules can be restricted to match only within
certain annotations using the BLOCK construct, and ignore all filtering
settings.
The following example contains a simple rule, which is able to create
annotations of two different types. It creates an annotation
of the type T1 for each match of the complete regular
expression and an annotation
of the type T2 for each match of the first capturing
group.
Am 02.05.2013 19:06, schrieb William Karl Thompson:
> I forgot to mention, the numeric argument in the proposed MARKREGEXP action
> indicates which capturing group is to be used from regular expression to
> generate the region for the annotation of the specified type.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: William Karl Thompson
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:02 PM
> To: user@uima.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>
> Peter,
>
> Thanks for helping me to get going on this, it now works like a charm! Have
> been able to generate extensions and have them be recognized by the Eclipse
> IDE as per your instructions. Very nice!
>
> In the process of doing this, I do have an idea for a possibly useful action
> to be added to the current set. The basic idea is implement functionality
> similar to that found in the RegularExpressionAnnotator that is one of the
> UIMA addons:
>
> http://uima.apache.org/sandbox.html#regex.annotator
>
> This allows you to define a set of regular expression matches, and to mark an
> annotation on the region covered by the match, restricted if desired by a
> capturing group within the regular expression. The way I implemented it
> experimentally was like the following:
>
> Sentence{->MARKREGEXP(TypeExpression, "(?i)(ascending colon) polyps",
> 1}; NP{PARTOF(FindingsSection)->MARKREGEXP(TypeExpression,
> "(?i)tubular adenoma", 0)};
>
> The key thing is that the regular expression matching is using the equivalent
> of java.util.regex.Matcher.find(), unlike the current implementation of the
> REGEXP condition, which uses match():
>
> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/regex/Matcher.h
> tml#find()
>
> Anyway, thanks again for your help getting this all working.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Will
>
>
> From: Peter Klügl [pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 4:20 PM
> To: user@uima.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>
> Hi,
>
> Am 29.04.2013 20:22, schrieb William Karl Thompson:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> I've updated and built the TextMarker projects, but now I'm spinning my
>> wheels a bit trying to install the updated TextMarker Workbench feature from
>> the projects. Could you give me a tip on how to do that? This isn't
>> something I've ever done before, and I'm not having much success at the
>> moment.
> There are different ways. You could either just build the jars and put them
> in the dropins folder of your eclipse installation (with no textmarker
> installed) - not really recommended. Or, you could build the update site,
> which can be used to install the feature and plugins. The pom of the update
> site project (was textmarker-eclipse-update-site) has two important
> properties: item-maven-release-version and item-eclipse-release-version. If
> you want to build an update site using the SNAPSHOT artifacts, then you need
> to adapt these values, e.g., to 2.0.1-SNAPSHOT and 2.0.1.SNAPSHOT. The normal
> process is to install
RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
I forgot to mention, the numeric argument in the proposed MARKREGEXP action
indicates which capturing group is to be used from regular expression to
generate the region for the annotation of the specified type.
-Original Message-
From: William Karl Thompson
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:02 PM
To: user@uima.apache.org
Subject: RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
Peter,
Thanks for helping me to get going on this, it now works like a charm! Have
been able to generate extensions and have them be recognized by the Eclipse IDE
as per your instructions. Very nice!
In the process of doing this, I do have an idea for a possibly useful action to
be added to the current set. The basic idea is implement functionality similar
to that found in the RegularExpressionAnnotator that is one of the UIMA addons:
http://uima.apache.org/sandbox.html#regex.annotator
This allows you to define a set of regular expression matches, and to mark an
annotation on the region covered by the match, restricted if desired by a
capturing group within the regular expression. The way I implemented it
experimentally was like the following:
Sentence{->MARKREGEXP(TypeExpression, "(?i)(ascending colon) polyps", 1};
NP{PARTOF(FindingsSection)->MARKREGEXP(TypeExpression, "(?i)tubular adenoma",
0)};
The key thing is that the regular expression matching is using the equivalent
of java.util.regex.Matcher.find(), unlike the current implementation of the
REGEXP condition, which uses match():
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/regex/Matcher.html#find()
Anyway, thanks again for your help getting this all working.
Cheers,
Will
From: Peter Klügl [pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 4:20 PM
To: user@uima.apache.org
Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
Hi,
Am 29.04.2013 20:22, schrieb William Karl Thompson:
> Hi Peter,
>
> I've updated and built the TextMarker projects, but now I'm spinning my
> wheels a bit trying to install the updated TextMarker Workbench feature from
> the projects. Could you give me a tip on how to do that? This isn't something
> I've ever done before, and I'm not having much success at the moment.
There are different ways. You could either just build the jars and put them in
the dropins folder of your eclipse installation (with no textmarker installed)
- not really recommended. Or, you could build the update site, which can be
used to install the feature and plugins. The pom of the update site project
(was textmarker-eclipse-update-site) has two important properties:
item-maven-release-version and item-eclipse-release-version. If you want to
build an update site using the SNAPSHOT artifacts, then you need to adapt these
values, e.g., to 2.0.1-SNAPSHOT and 2.0.1.SNAPSHOT. The normal process is to
install everything and then package the update site.
You have also to include your extensions somehow, e.g., by extending the update
site (and feature) or by copying the built plugin to the dropins folder.
When I try new stuff, I always start an Eclipse Application using my textmarker
workspace. Here, no installation is needed. I could also build a textmarker
update site with the fixed extensions for you, but unfortunately not before
Thursday.
I am currently in the process of renaming all textmarker projects (the new name
is UIMA Ruta). You have to be careful which revision you are using to build the
projects right now, because I wasn't able to finish the renaming today, and I
haven't tested the new update site yet. The renaming started with revision
1477012. Sorry for the bad timing.
Best,
Peter
> Many thanks,
>
> Will
>
> -Original Message-
> From: William Karl Thompson
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 3:40 PM
> To: user@uima.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Thanks very much, I will try this out!
>
> Best,
>
> Will
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:30 AM
> To: user@uima.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>
> Hi,
>
> On 25.04.2013 19:16, William Karl Thompson wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Many thanks! I was just about to try it out before reading your latest
>> email. Should I check out the latest trunk version from the svn repository
>> tomorrow?
> I fixed most problems and committed the changes together with two
> example projects (in
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/trunk/example-projects):
>
> textmarker-ep-example-extensions contains two parts: the implementation of an
> action (ExampleAction) and the integration in the ide. That's the reason, why
> it is a maven eclips
RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
Peter,
Thanks for helping me to get going on this, it now works like a charm! Have
been able to generate extensions and have them be recognized by the Eclipse IDE
as per your instructions. Very nice!
In the process of doing this, I do have an idea for a possibly useful action to
be added to the current set. The basic idea is implement functionality similar
to that found in the RegularExpressionAnnotator that is one of the UIMA addons:
http://uima.apache.org/sandbox.html#regex.annotator
This allows you to define a set of regular expression matches, and to mark an
annotation on the region covered by the match, restricted if desired by a
capturing group within the regular expression. The way I implemented it
experimentally was like the following:
Sentence{->MARKREGEXP(TypeExpression, "(?i)(ascending colon) polyps", 1};
NP{PARTOF(FindingsSection)->MARKREGEXP(TypeExpression, "(?i)tubular adenoma",
0)};
The key thing is that the regular expression matching is using the equivalent
of java.util.regex.Matcher.find(), unlike the current implementation of the
REGEXP condition, which uses match():
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/regex/Matcher.html#find()
Anyway, thanks again for your help getting this all working.
Cheers,
Will
From: Peter Klügl [pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 4:20 PM
To: user@uima.apache.org
Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
Hi,
Am 29.04.2013 20:22, schrieb William Karl Thompson:
> Hi Peter,
>
> I've updated and built the TextMarker projects, but now I'm spinning my
> wheels a bit trying to install the updated TextMarker Workbench feature from
> the projects. Could you give me a tip on how to do that? This isn't something
> I've ever done before, and I'm not having much success at the moment.
There are different ways. You could either just build the jars and put
them in the dropins folder of your eclipse installation (with no
textmarker installed) - not really recommended. Or, you could build the
update site, which can be used to install the feature and plugins. The
pom of the update site project (was textmarker-eclipse-update-site) has
two important properties: item-maven-release-version and
item-eclipse-release-version. If you want to build an update site using
the SNAPSHOT artifacts, then you need to adapt these values, e.g., to
2.0.1-SNAPSHOT and 2.0.1.SNAPSHOT. The normal process is to install
everything and then package the update site.
You have also to include your extensions somehow, e.g., by extending the
update site (and feature) or by copying the built plugin to the dropins
folder.
When I try new stuff, I always start an Eclipse Application using my
textmarker workspace. Here, no installation is needed. I could also
build a textmarker update site with the fixed extensions for you, but
unfortunately not before Thursday.
I am currently in the process of renaming all textmarker projects (the
new name is UIMA Ruta). You have to be careful which revision you are
using to build the projects right now, because I wasn't able to finish
the renaming today, and I haven't tested the new update site yet. The
renaming started with revision 1477012. Sorry for the bad timing.
Best,
Peter
> Many thanks,
>
> Will
>
> -Original Message-
> From: William Karl Thompson
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 3:40 PM
> To: user@uima.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Thanks very much, I will try this out!
>
> Best,
>
> Will
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:30 AM
> To: user@uima.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>
> Hi,
>
> On 25.04.2013 19:16, William Karl Thompson wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Many thanks! I was just about to try it out before reading your latest
>> email. Should I check out the latest trunk version from the svn repository
>> tomorrow?
> I fixed most problems and committed the changes together with two example
> projects (in
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/trunk/example-projects):
>
> textmarker-ep-example-extensions contains two parts: the implementation of an
> action (ExampleAction) and the integration in the ide. That's the reason, why
> it is a maven eclipse-plugin project.
>
> ExtensionsExample is a simple textmarker project, which uses the extension.
>
> The syntax check in the Workbench is not yet correctly integrated. It will
> take a while until I will be able to write the documentation for the
> extensions. Just let me know, if any problems occur.
>
> Best,
>
> Peter
>
> Btw: I am also involved in a project ab
RE: Textmarker: delete contained annotations
Thanks Peter! I have read the documentation, but forgot about that condition.
From: Peter Klügl [pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 6:18 AM
To: user@uima.apache.org
Subject: Re: Textmarker: delete contained annotations
Hi,
Am 01.05.2013 04:57, schrieb William Karl Thompson:
> Hi,
>
> I'm working with the cTAKES pipeline to annotate some clinical text. The
> cTAKES syntactic chunker generates overlapping and nested annotations with
> the same syntactic type. For example:
>
> [NP ascending [NP colon polyps]]
>
> What I would like to do is to use TextMarker rules to eliminate nested
> annotations, so at the end of the day just have the following:
>
> [NP colon ascending polyps]
>
> I've tried to use UNMARK, but the following two rules appear to remove all
> NPs starting at the first match, even the containing annotation:
>
> NP{PARTOF(NP)->UNMARK(NP)};
> NP{CONTAINS(NP)->UNMARK(NP)};
>
> Is there way to accomplish this that I'm missing? Using loops perhaps?
The simplest solution in your situation would be:
NP{PARTOFNEQ(NP) -> UNMARK(NP)};
(PARTOFNEQ: part of, but not equal)
If it gets more complicated, then something with a loop and/or
additional types is necessary:
BLOCK(forEach) Test{} {
ANY+? Test{-> UNMARK(Test)};
Test{-> UNMARK(Test)} ANY;
}
Best,
Peter
> Thanks,
>
> Will
>
Textmarker: delete contained annotations
Hi,
I'm working with the cTAKES pipeline to annotate some clinical text. The cTAKES
syntactic chunker generates overlapping and nested annotations with the same
syntactic type. For example:
[NP ascending [NP colon polyps]]
What I would like to do is to use TextMarker rules to eliminate nested
annotations, so at the end of the day just have the following:
[NP colon ascending polyps]
I've tried to use UNMARK, but the following two rules appear to remove all NPs
starting at the first match, even the containing annotation:
NP{PARTOF(NP)->UNMARK(NP)};
NP{CONTAINS(NP)->UNMARK(NP)};
Is there way to accomplish this that I'm missing? Using loops perhaps?
Thanks,
Will
RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
Thanks very much for the tips -- I did notice the name change! I think I'll wait a couple of days until that series of updates has percolated through the code base, and you've had a chance to validate the update site. Best regards, Will -Original Message- From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de] Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 4:21 PM To: user@uima.apache.org Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions Hi, Am 29.04.2013 20:22, schrieb William Karl Thompson: > Hi Peter, > > I've updated and built the TextMarker projects, but now I'm spinning my > wheels a bit trying to install the updated TextMarker Workbench feature from > the projects. Could you give me a tip on how to do that? This isn't something > I've ever done before, and I'm not having much success at the moment. There are different ways. You could either just build the jars and put them in the dropins folder of your eclipse installation (with no textmarker installed) - not really recommended. Or, you could build the update site, which can be used to install the feature and plugins. The pom of the update site project (was textmarker-eclipse-update-site) has two important properties: item-maven-release-version and item-eclipse-release-version. If you want to build an update site using the SNAPSHOT artifacts, then you need to adapt these values, e.g., to 2.0.1-SNAPSHOT and 2.0.1.SNAPSHOT. The normal process is to install everything and then package the update site. You have also to include your extensions somehow, e.g., by extending the update site (and feature) or by copying the built plugin to the dropins folder. When I try new stuff, I always start an Eclipse Application using my textmarker workspace. Here, no installation is needed. I could also build a textmarker update site with the fixed extensions for you, but unfortunately not before Thursday. I am currently in the process of renaming all textmarker projects (the new name is UIMA Ruta). You have to be careful which revision you are using to build the projects right now, because I wasn't able to finish the renaming today, and I haven't tested the new update site yet. The renaming started with revision 1477012. Sorry for the bad timing. Best, Peter > Many thanks, > > Will > > -Original Message- > From: William Karl Thompson > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 3:40 PM > To: user@uima.apache.org > Subject: RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions > > Hi Peter, > > Thanks very much, I will try this out! > > Best, > > Will > > -Original Message- > From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de] > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:30 AM > To: user@uima.apache.org > Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions > > Hi, > > On 25.04.2013 19:16, William Karl Thompson wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> Many thanks! I was just about to try it out before reading your latest >> email. Should I check out the latest trunk version from the svn repository >> tomorrow? > I fixed most problems and committed the changes together with two > example projects (in > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/trunk/example-projects): > > textmarker-ep-example-extensions contains two parts: the implementation of an > action (ExampleAction) and the integration in the ide. That's the reason, why > it is a maven eclipse-plugin project. > > ExtensionsExample is a simple textmarker project, which uses the extension. > > The syntax check in the Workbench is not yet correctly integrated. It will > take a while until I will be able to write the documentation for the > extensions. Just let me know, if any problems occur. > > Best, > > Peter > > Btw: I am also involved in a project about information extraction in > clinical texts. That's a quite active area ;-) > >> In terms of feature requests, I appreciate your willingness to consider >> extensions. My strategy will be to try accomplishing a few tasks first, to >> see what can be abstracted that is of sufficient generality. As background >> info, I am creating some NLP applications for clinical text using cTAKES, >> and I think TextMarker is a nice option to have for rule-based alternatives >> to certain tasks (like relating two annotations to each other, >> DiseaseDisorder and AnatomicalLocation in the same sentence). The current >> cTAKES relation extractor is based on machine learning, and requires an >> annotated corpus for training, whereas sometimes it's just easier to create >> a set of rules. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Will >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de] >>
RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
Hi Peter, I've updated and built the TextMarker projects, but now I'm spinning my wheels a bit trying to install the updated TextMarker Workbench feature from the projects. Could you give me a tip on how to do that? This isn't something I've ever done before, and I'm not having much success at the moment. Many thanks, Will -Original Message- From: William Karl Thompson Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 3:40 PM To: user@uima.apache.org Subject: RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions Hi Peter, Thanks very much, I will try this out! Best, Will -Original Message- From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de] Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:30 AM To: user@uima.apache.org Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions Hi, On 25.04.2013 19:16, William Karl Thompson wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Many thanks! I was just about to try it out before reading your latest > email. Should I check out the latest trunk version from the svn repository > tomorrow? I fixed most problems and committed the changes together with two example projects (in https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/trunk/example-projects): textmarker-ep-example-extensions contains two parts: the implementation of an action (ExampleAction) and the integration in the ide. That's the reason, why it is a maven eclipse-plugin project. ExtensionsExample is a simple textmarker project, which uses the extension. The syntax check in the Workbench is not yet correctly integrated. It will take a while until I will be able to write the documentation for the extensions. Just let me know, if any problems occur. Best, Peter Btw: I am also involved in a project about information extraction in clinical texts. That's a quite active area ;-) > In terms of feature requests, I appreciate your willingness to consider > extensions. My strategy will be to try accomplishing a few tasks first, to > see what can be abstracted that is of sufficient generality. As background > info, I am creating some NLP applications for clinical text using cTAKES, and > I think TextMarker is a nice option to have for rule-based alternatives to > certain tasks (like relating two annotations to each other, DiseaseDisorder > and AnatomicalLocation in the same sentence). The current cTAKES relation > extractor is based on machine learning, and requires an annotated corpus for > training, whereas sometimes it's just easier to create a set of rules. > > Cheers, > > Will > > -Original Message- > From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de] > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:49 AM > To: user@uima.apache.org > Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions > > Hi, > > I checked the language extensions and unfortunately they do not work right > now. There are some small bugs, but they will be fixed tomorrow. > > Best, > > Peter > > Am 25.04.2013 11:37, schrieb Peter Klügl: >> Hi, >> >> Am 25.04.2013 03:29, schrieb William Karl Thompson: >>> Hello, >>> >>> (My apologies, I mistakenly sent this to the dev list initially) >>> >>> I'm very interested in using the TextMarker project, but the current >>> set of action types doesn't quite do what I need. I found references >>> to an extension mechanism, have also found the >>> ITextMarkerActionExtension interface in the source code. I also >>> found the antlr grammar and lexer files where the TextMarker >>> language is defined, which appears to be where new action type names >>> are to be added. So I surmise the steps to add new actions is to >>> >>> >>> 1. Add the desired action signature to the antlr grammar >>> >>> 2. Define an implementation of ITextMarkerActionExtension that >>> implements the functionality. >>> >>> Is there an easier way to do this? My concern is that I need to >>> modify TextMarker source files (the grammar and lexer files), which >>> would be overwritten on any updated version of TextMarker. >> This should be possible without changing any textmarker code. >> >> There is a generic parsing rule in the grammar, which creates an >> external action using the set of ITextMarkerExtension mentioned in >> the descriptor (parameter: additionalExtensions). There is no default >> syntax check since the possible arguments are of course not yet known >> by the engine. Syntax checks need to be implemented in the >> ITextMarkerActionExtension.createAction(), which throws an >> ANTLRException. The arguments of the action are delegated to this >> method, which return the action implementation, so there will >&g
RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
Hi Peter,
Thanks very much, I will try this out!
Best,
Will
-Original Message-
From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:30 AM
To: user@uima.apache.org
Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
Hi,
On 25.04.2013 19:16, William Karl Thompson wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Many thanks! I was just about to try it out before reading your latest
> email. Should I check out the latest trunk version from the svn repository
> tomorrow?
I fixed most problems and committed the changes together with two example
projects (in
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/uima/sandbox/textmarker/trunk/example-projects):
textmarker-ep-example-extensions contains two parts: the implementation of an
action (ExampleAction) and the integration in the ide. That's the reason, why
it is a maven eclipse-plugin project.
ExtensionsExample is a simple textmarker project, which uses the extension.
The syntax check in the Workbench is not yet correctly integrated. It will take
a while until I will be able to write the documentation for the extensions.
Just let me know, if any problems occur.
Best,
Peter
Btw: I am also involved in a project about information extraction in clinical
texts. That's a quite active area ;-)
> In terms of feature requests, I appreciate your willingness to consider
> extensions. My strategy will be to try accomplishing a few tasks first, to
> see what can be abstracted that is of sufficient generality. As background
> info, I am creating some NLP applications for clinical text using cTAKES, and
> I think TextMarker is a nice option to have for rule-based alternatives to
> certain tasks (like relating two annotations to each other, DiseaseDisorder
> and AnatomicalLocation in the same sentence). The current cTAKES relation
> extractor is based on machine learning, and requires an annotated corpus for
> training, whereas sometimes it's just easier to create a set of rules.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Will
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:49 AM
> To: user@uima.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
>
> Hi,
>
> I checked the language extensions and unfortunately they do not work right
> now. There are some small bugs, but they will be fixed tomorrow.
>
> Best,
>
> Peter
>
> Am 25.04.2013 11:37, schrieb Peter Klügl:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am 25.04.2013 03:29, schrieb William Karl Thompson:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> (My apologies, I mistakenly sent this to the dev list initially)
>>>
>>> I'm very interested in using the TextMarker project, but the current
>>> set of action types doesn't quite do what I need. I found references
>>> to an extension mechanism, have also found the
>>> ITextMarkerActionExtension interface in the source code. I also
>>> found the antlr grammar and lexer files where the TextMarker
>>> language is defined, which appears to be where new action type names
>>> are to be added. So I surmise the steps to add new actions is to
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Add the desired action signature to the antlr grammar
>>>
>>> 2. Define an implementation of ITextMarkerActionExtension that
>>> implements the functionality.
>>>
>>> Is there an easier way to do this? My concern is that I need to
>>> modify TextMarker source files (the grammar and lexer files), which
>>> would be overwritten on any updated version of TextMarker.
>> This should be possible without changing any textmarker code.
>>
>> There is a generic parsing rule in the grammar, which creates an
>> external action using the set of ITextMarkerExtension mentioned in
>> the descriptor (parameter: additionalExtensions). There is no default
>> syntax check since the possible arguments are of course not yet known
>> by the engine. Syntax checks need to be implemented in the
>> ITextMarkerActionExtension.createAction(), which throws an
>> ANTLRException. The arguments of the action are delegated to this
>> method, which return the action implementation, so there will
>> probably many casts and "if instanceOf" checks. Language constructs
>> like assignments ("feature" = Type) known by the CREATE action, are
>> not yet supported.
>>
>> Unfortunately, there is no automatic integration in the workbench yet.
>> You have to modify the BasicEngine (add the extension) in the
>> textmarker project yourself. The implemenatation of the extension
>> needs of course then also be available to the workbench.
>>
>> I haven
RE: Extending TextMarker with new actions
Hi Peter,
Many thanks! I was just about to try it out before reading your latest email.
Should I check out the latest trunk version from the svn repository tomorrow?
In terms of feature requests, I appreciate your willingness to consider
extensions. My strategy will be to try accomplishing a few tasks first, to see
what can be abstracted that is of sufficient generality. As background info, I
am creating some NLP applications for clinical text using cTAKES, and I think
TextMarker is a nice option to have for rule-based alternatives to certain
tasks (like relating two annotations to each other, DiseaseDisorder and
AnatomicalLocation in the same sentence). The current cTAKES relation extractor
is based on machine learning, and requires an annotated corpus for training,
whereas sometimes it's just easier to create a set of rules.
Cheers,
Will
-Original Message-
From: Peter Klügl [mailto:pklu...@uni-wuerzburg.de]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:49 AM
To: user@uima.apache.org
Subject: Re: Extending TextMarker with new actions
Hi,
I checked the language extensions and unfortunately they do not work right now.
There are some small bugs, but they will be fixed tomorrow.
Best,
Peter
Am 25.04.2013 11:37, schrieb Peter Klügl:
> Hi,
>
> Am 25.04.2013 03:29, schrieb William Karl Thompson:
>> Hello,
>>
>> (My apologies, I mistakenly sent this to the dev list initially)
>>
>> I'm very interested in using the TextMarker project, but the current
>> set of action types doesn't quite do what I need. I found references
>> to an extension mechanism, have also found the
>> ITextMarkerActionExtension interface in the source code. I also found
>> the antlr grammar and lexer files where the TextMarker language is
>> defined, which appears to be where new action type names are to be
>> added. So I surmise the steps to add new actions is to
>>
>>
>> 1. Add the desired action signature to the antlr grammar
>>
>> 2. Define an implementation of ITextMarkerActionExtension that
>> implements the functionality.
>>
>> Is there an easier way to do this? My concern is that I need to
>> modify TextMarker source files (the grammar and lexer files), which
>> would be overwritten on any updated version of TextMarker.
>
> This should be possible without changing any textmarker code.
>
> There is a generic parsing rule in the grammar, which creates an
> external action using the set of ITextMarkerExtension mentioned in the
> descriptor (parameter: additionalExtensions). There is no default
> syntax check since the possible arguments are of course not yet known
> by the engine. Syntax checks need to be implemented in the
> ITextMarkerActionExtension.createAction(), which throws an
> ANTLRException. The arguments of the action are delegated to this
> method, which return the action implementation, so there will probably
> many casts and "if instanceOf" checks. Language constructs like
> assignments ("feature" = Type) known by the CREATE action, are not yet
> supported.
>
> Unfortunately, there is no automatic integration in the workbench yet.
> You have to modify the BasicEngine (add the extension) in the
> textmarker project yourself. The implemenatation of the extension
> needs of course then also be available to the workbench.
>
> I haven't used the language extensions since 2009 (it was a wordnet
> integration) and they are not yet covered by unit tests. So, there are
> maybe some bugs due to the changes after the contribution to Apache
> UIMA. However, I will check the functionality, add a test case and
> extend the documentation.
>
> Concerning the list of available actions: You are of course also
> welcome to create feature requests for new actions. The current set of
> actions is mainly based on my own requirements and I will gladly add
> new reasonable/generic actions (within the limits of my available time).
>
> Best,
>
> Peter
>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Will Thompson
>>
Extending TextMarker with new actions
Hello, (My apologies, I mistakenly sent this to the dev list initially) I'm very interested in using the TextMarker project, but the current set of action types doesn't quite do what I need. I found references to an extension mechanism, have also found the ITextMarkerActionExtension interface in the source code. I also found the antlr grammar and lexer files where the TextMarker language is defined, which appears to be where new action type names are to be added. So I surmise the steps to add new actions is to 1. Add the desired action signature to the antlr grammar 2. Define an implementation of ITextMarkerActionExtension that implements the functionality. Is there an easier way to do this? My concern is that I need to modify TextMarker source files (the grammar and lexer files), which would be overwritten on any updated version of TextMarker. Thanks! Will Thompson
