Topic
IC4NOTICE: developerWorks Community will be offline May 29-30, 2015 while we upgrade to the latest version of IBM Connections. For more information, read our upgrade FAQ.
1 reply Latest Post - ‏2012-12-05T10:36:16Z by SystemAdmin
SystemAdmin
SystemAdmin
197 Posts
ACCEPTED ANSWER

Pinned topic Generalizing negation by using groups in rules

‏2012-12-05T08:14:49Z |
I've written rules that negate terms by looking for two types of tokens (according to dictionary lookups): Negations (not, no, etc.) and Diseases.
The rule is correctly removing the Disease annotation from the analysis.

I have five medical dictionaries (diseases, procedures, medications, diseases, physical conditions, etc.) so I want to generalize the rule to remove all these annotations.

I tried making a group (requiring 1 occurrence) and with group members as 0 or 1 occurrence.

This time when I tried to right-click one of the annotations listed in the group and chose "Delete Annotation" the annotation actually disappeared (not like above where it is grayed out and listed as a plain token). I'm not sure I understand the interface in this case.

So for the text "no mumps" the first rule worked, but the second group-type did not.

Is my logic incorrect? Is there a recommended way to deal with this. It seems that generalizing Annotations in a group would be logical.

thanks
Updated on 2012-12-05T10:36:16Z at 2012-12-05T10:36:16Z by SystemAdmin
  • SystemAdmin
    SystemAdmin
    197 Posts
    ACCEPTED ANSWER

    Re: Generalizing negation by using groups in rules

    ‏2012-12-05T10:36:16Z  in response to SystemAdmin
    You need to create a rule for all these entities. The Group function is different.
    I think you are talking about the "Or" operator, which is not supported.