You are welcome.
The coverage-based filtering concept can be really annoying and is often
responsible for unintentionally missed rule matches. On the other side
it introduces a greater expressiveness than in similar rule languages.
There are plans to extend it with additional old fashioned type-based
visibility so that these annoying use cases with a single space at the
beginning or end of an annotation can be ignored.
btw, there is the TRIM action (a shortcut for SHIFT or UNMARK/MARK),
which I commonly use to "repair" these annotations for rapid prototyping:
RETAINTYPE(WS, BREAK);
XMLTagAnnotation{-> TRIM(SPACE,BREAK)};
RETAINTYPE;
Best,
Peter
Am 13.08.2015 um 09:31 schrieb Manuel Ciosici:
> Hello Peter,
>
> Sorry for the late reply. Thank you very much, your suggestion fixed my issue.
>
> Manuel
>
>> On 06 Aug 2015, at 15:15 , Peter Klügl <peter.klu...@averbis.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> yes this is the right place.
>>
>> First quick guess: filtering settings.
>>
>> Do your annotations starts with something invisible like MARKUP, SPACE
>> or BREAK?
>>
>> You can test it by adding a rule like the following before the others
>> are applied.
>>
>> Document{-> RETAINTYPE(WS, BREAK, MARKUP)};
>>
>> or with ruta 2.3.0, only:
>>
>> RETAINTYPE(WS, BREAK, MARKUP);
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> Am 06.08.2015 um 15:05 schrieb Manuel Ciosici:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I hope this is the right place to ask about using UIMA Ruta.
>>>
>>> I am trying to integrate Ruta in an UIMA pipeline after an AE and add some
>>> annotations based on the ones added by the previous AE. Currently, my Ruta
>>> script doesn’t seem to be able to pick up those previously existing
>>> annotations. I have saved the output from the previous AE in an XMI file
>>> and I’m testing using the Eclipse workbench.
>>>
>>> I can see the annotations from the previous AE in the Annotation Browser
>>> View, so they are there, but when I look in the Applied Rules view, Ruta
>>> never attempts to apply the rule (shows 0/0 for attempts). I’ve tried
>>> creating some of the same annotations from my Ruta script and these are
>>> seen by my other Ruta rules. I have also played around with various ways of
>>> importing the types using TYPESYSTEM and IMPORT, but to no effect.
>>>
>>> Here’s a sample script exhibiting this behaviour:
>>>
>>> PACKAGE com.unsilo.ruta_test;
>>> TYPESYSTEM com.unsilo.cproc.types.TestAnnotations;
>>>
>>> XMLTagAnnotation.tagName == "Book" { -> XMLTagAnnotation.tagName =
>>> "BookPublisher”};
>>>
>>>
>>> The TestAnnotations XML file is located in the descriptor folder under the
>>> path com/unsilo/cproc/types/TestAnnotations.xml.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Manuel
