Allow attributes for relations #791

Open
spyysalo opened this Issue May 29, 2012 · 14 comments

Comments

@spyysalo
Member

spyysalo commented May 29, 2012

It should be possible to attach attributes to relations.

Although most of the infrastructure for doing this is already in place, some work will be needed on both server and client. I'll take this initially to look at the server side.

Tentatively marking this for 1.3.

@ghost ghost assigned spyysalo May 29, 2012

@spyysalo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@spyysalo

spyysalo May 30, 2012

Member

note to self (mostly): response.event_attribute_types and response.entity_attribute_types are used to set the global attribute type info in collectionLoaded (visualizer.js). This is part of the getCollectionInformation response.

Member

spyysalo commented May 30, 2012

note to self (mostly): response.event_attribute_types and response.entity_attribute_types are used to set the global attribute type info in collectionLoaded (visualizer.js). This is part of the getCollectionInformation response.

@spyysalo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@spyysalo

spyysalo May 30, 2012

Member

As of 223f788, the configuration recognizes entries such as the following in the [attributes] section:

Rel-Attr        Arg:<RELATION>

with the expected meaning that any relation can take a Rel-Attr attribute. This is also passed to the client in the response to getCollectionInformation as relation_attribute_types (content same as for event_attribute_types and entity_attribute_types).

The client doesn't do anything about this information, though, so it's not usable at the moment. @amadanmath : would this fit on your schedule, or, alternatively, do you think I might be able to handle the clientside? Please assign self if you can take this.

Member

spyysalo commented May 30, 2012

As of 223f788, the configuration recognizes entries such as the following in the [attributes] section:

Rel-Attr        Arg:<RELATION>

with the expected meaning that any relation can take a Rel-Attr attribute. This is also passed to the client in the response to getCollectionInformation as relation_attribute_types (content same as for event_attribute_types and entity_attribute_types).

The client doesn't do anything about this information, though, so it's not usable at the moment. @amadanmath : would this fit on your schedule, or, alternatively, do you think I might be able to handle the clientside? Please assign self if you can take this.

@spyysalo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@spyysalo

spyysalo May 30, 2012

Member

Note to self: validation has no idea about relation attributes yet

Member

spyysalo commented May 30, 2012

Note to self: validation has no idea about relation attributes yet

@spyysalo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@spyysalo

spyysalo May 31, 2012

Member

As of 84d1154, createArc now accepts an attributes argument with the same format as for createSpan, and this is processed serverside. If I got the serverside right, arguments on relations should now work once the client does something about them.

Handing off to @amadanmath. I'd suggest to simply allow these to be set at first, and worry about visualization later.

Member

spyysalo commented May 31, 2012

As of 84d1154, createArc now accepts an attributes argument with the same format as for createSpan, and this is processed serverside. If I got the serverside right, arguments on relations should now work once the client does something about them.

Handing off to @amadanmath. I'd suggest to simply allow these to be set at first, and worry about visualization later.

@ghost ghost assigned amadanmath May 31, 2012

@ninjin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ninjin

ninjin Nov 5, 2014

Member

My intuition tells me that this one will have to be delayed for post-v1.4. Correct me if I am wrong.

Member

ninjin commented Nov 5, 2014

My intuition tells me that this one will have to be delayed for post-v1.4. Correct me if I am wrong.

@matiasz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matiasz

matiasz Mar 10, 2015

👍

This feature would be very helpful for my work!

matiasz commented Mar 10, 2015

👍

This feature would be very helpful for my work!

@reckart reckart referenced this issue in dkpro/dkpro-core Jul 26, 2015

Closed

Support brat annotation format (DKPro Core 1.8.0) #656

17 of 17 tasks complete
@wkiri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wkiri

wkiri Jan 27, 2016

I agree with matiasz - I really need this feature for my task. Please let us know if it's still in the works! Thank you.

wkiri commented Jan 27, 2016

I agree with matiasz - I really need this feature for my task. Please let us know if it's still in the works! Thank you.

@gerardbdn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gerardbdn

gerardbdn Feb 1, 2016

I also vote for having this feature added. Thanks!

I also vote for having this feature added. Thanks!

@Renaud009

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

+1

@mbelousov

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

+1

@janakact

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@janakact

janakact May 19, 2017

+1

We really need this feature for our annotation task. Thank you!

+1

We really need this feature for our annotation task. Thank you!

@reckart

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@reckart

reckart May 19, 2017

If you need a brat-like tool that supports features on relations, you might have a look at WebAnno. Depending on your other needs, it may be a suitable alternative.

reckart commented May 19, 2017

If you need a brat-like tool that supports features on relations, you might have a look at WebAnno. Depending on your other needs, it may be a suitable alternative.

@hannahlindsley

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@hannahlindsley

hannahlindsley Nov 21, 2017

Does anyone actually work on this codebase...

Oh. My. God. @reckart is WebAnno actually maintained?! I'm so excited. Looking it up now.

hannahlindsley commented Nov 21, 2017

Does anyone actually work on this codebase...

Oh. My. God. @reckart is WebAnno actually maintained?! I'm so excited. Looking it up now.

@kanihal

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

kanihal commented Jul 9, 2018

+1

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment