OK, thanks. I played around a little bit today with my own rules
DECLARE Group1;
DECLARE Group2;
DECLARE R3Dot1CurrentPurposeConstraint(Annotation group1, Annotation
group2);
BLOCK(eachEC) EC{}{
"(?i).*(must be (?:receiving|undergoing|using) (.*) for) (.*)" ->
R3Dot1CurrentPurposeConstraint,2=Group1, 3=Group2;
"(?i).*(ongoing (.*(?:therapy|treatment).*) for) (.*)" ->
R3Dot1CurrentPurposeConstraint;
}
I want to end up with the text marked by Group1 to be the value for the
group1 feature in R3Dot1CurrentPurposeConstraint (and likewise group2), but
I couldn't find a way to do it in my rules above, so I added this
R3Dot1CurrentPurposeConstraint {->
R3Dot1CurrentPurposeConstraint.group1=Group1,
R3Dot1CurrentPurposeConstraint.group2=Group2};
It appears to work on a small test case. Does that seem correct to you? Is
there a better way to do this, preferably right in the rules with the
regular expressions?
Also, why did you declare your features as Annotation rather than Employee
and Employer?
DECLARE EmplRelation (Annotation employee, Annotation employer);
I imitated this, but to me it would seem better to use
DECLARE EmplRelation (Employee employee, Employer employer);
I am sure there is a good reason for this, but I don't see it!
Thanks, this cleared up some amount of confusion
Bonnie MacKellar
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 5:58 AM, Peter Klügl <peter.klu...@averbis.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> yes, the types need to be declared before. The DECLARE statements have
> been omitted in the example.
>
>
> Ruta 2.4.0 introduced annotation expressions. Before that, annotations
> have only ben e referenced by type expressons. Ruta tries to guess which
> annotation is meant by the given type expression using the context.
>
> So, if you "assign" a type to a feature that expects one annotation,
> then the first annotation of that type within the matching window of the
> rule element is selected. In that example, this is the first annotation
> of the type Employee within the currently matched sentence annotation.
>
> Here are some more (with declare, but without the Indicator annotation)
> examples how to assign feature values for the trivial text "Peter works
> for Frank.":
>
>
> DECLARE Employer, Employee;
> DECLARE EmplRelation (Annotation employee, Annotation employer);
> "Peter"-> Employee;
> "Frank"-> Employer;
>
> // CREATE
> Document{-> CREATE(EmplRelation, "employee" = Employee, "employer" =
> Employer)};
>
> // GATHER
> Employee # Employer{-> GATHER(EmplRelation, 1, 3, "employee" = 1,
> "employer" = 3)};
>
> // implicit actions
> (Employee # Employer){-> EmplRelation,
> EmplRelation.employee = Employee,
> EmplRelation.employer = Employer};
>
> // annotation variables
> ANNOTATION e1,e2;
> (Employee{-> ASSIGN(e1, Employee)} # Employer{-> ASSIGN(e2, Employer)})
> {-> CREATE(EmplRelation, "employee" = e1, "employer" = e2)};
>
> // labels
> (e1:Employee # e2:Employer)
> {-> CREATE(EmplRelation, "employee" = e1, "employer" = e2)};
>
> Best,
>
>
> Peter
>
> Am 14.09.2016 um 01:20 schrieb Bonnie MacKellar:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I need to create annotations with features, but I am struggling to
> > understand the one example given in the manual
> >
> > DECLARE Annotation EmplRelation
> > (Employee employeeRef, Employer employerRef);
> > Sentence{CONTAINS(EmploymentIndicator) -> CREATE(EmplRelation,
> > "employeeRef" = Employee, "employerRef" = Employer)};
> >
> > I understand that this declares an Annotation with two features, one of
> > type Employee and one of type Employer. I am assuming these are
> Annotations
> > that have also been declared in the script? The second part really
> baffles
> > me. The way I am reading this, if a sentence contains an annotation of
> type
> > EmploymentIndicator, then create a EmplRelation annotation - and assign
> the
> > type Employer to feature employeeRef???? That makes no sense. It looks
> > like this assigns a type to a feature. I would have assumed we would want
> > some text as the value, no? Could anyone explain this in more detail?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Bonnie MacKellar
> >
>
>
