You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is it possible to infer rewrite rules between two distinct domains such that terms from each only occur on the same side of the rewrite rule? How can I return a Ruleset from run_workload that spans two domains? If this isn't possible OOTB, could you point me to the places where changes would be required to support this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sorry for the slow reply!
This is not currently supported- terms/workloads don't really have a notion of "domain", so the closest you could do would be to implement an enumo language that covers both domains. You could then make a workload that only enumerates terms that correspond to one domain or the other.
However, we don't have a way to constrain rules to have terms from one domain on one side and terms from the other on the other side. I've thought about this feature a little bit, but haven't ever really tried to implement it. It's good to know that it would be helpful for your use case though!
I haven't thought about this too carefully, but you could possibly try to do something custom in extraction to make sure you only select rules that rewrite from one domain to the other in the way you would want. It's a little tricky because you'd then need two different extractors (one for the LHS of rules and one for the RHS of rules), but something along those lines might work. Let me know if something like that works and/or if you want to chat more about what you're trying to do and we can see if there's a way to make Enumo work for your use case!
Is it possible to infer rewrite rules between two distinct domains such that terms from each only occur on the same side of the rewrite rule? How can I return a
Ruleset
fromrun_workload
that spans two domains? If this isn't possible OOTB, could you point me to the places where changes would be required to support this?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: