A: I solved that at the same time as " how do we keep adjectives from floating to the left of determiners and how do we keep all of that from floating outside the noun phrase " to get something like " I the kicked dog " .
A: Um .
C: That 's great .
A: Did it did it at once .
A: So maybe maybe it 'll be a similar thing .
C: Yeah .
B: Cool .
C: No , I know , I th I I think that is gonna be sort of the key to this wh to th the big project of the summer of of getting the constructions right
C: is that people do manage to do this
C: so there probably are some , uh , relatively clean rules ,
C: they 're just not context - free trees .
A: Right .
C: And if we if the formalism is is good , then we should be able to have , you know , sort of moderate scale thing .
C: And that by the way is is , Keith , what I encouraged George to be talking with you about .
C: Not the formalism yet
A: Mm - hmm .
C: but the phenomena .
A: Yeah .
C: The p
C: And C: Oh , another thing ,
C: um
C: there was this , uh thing that Nancy agreed to in a in a weak moment this morning that
A: Hmm !
B: I was really strong .
A: Hmm !
F: Hmm .
C: Uh , sorry . In a in a friendly moment .
A: Same thing .
C: Anyway , uh , that we were that we 're gonna try to get a uh , first cut at the revised formalism by the end of next week .
C: OK ?
A: Alright .
C: Probably skipping the mental spaces part .
B: Seems A: Right . I do .
C: Uh , just trying to write up essentially what what you guys have worked out so that everybody has something to look at .
C: We 've talked about it , but only the innermost inner group currently , uh ,
A: Mm - hmm .
A: Knows .
C: knows , uh
A: OK .
B: Yeah , and and not even all of them really do .
A: Yeah .
B: But like C: Right .
A: There 's The group as a whole knows
A: but no individual member kno
C: Well that that yeah th there 's one of the advantages of a document , right ? ,
A: Yeah .
C: is is that it actually transfers from head to head .
B: Right .
C: So anyway .
A: OK .
C: So um B: Ah , communication !
C: Huh ?
B: Communication .
C: Communication , documentation and stuff .
A: Hunh !
C: Anyway , so , uh , with a little luck C: Uh l let 's , let 's have that as a goal anyway .
C: And A: So , uh , what was the date there ?
A: Monday
A: or ?
C: No , no , no .
A: It 's a Friday .
C: No , w uh we 're talking about a week fr e end of next week .
B: But , uh , but but the two of us will probably talk to you at well before th
A: End of next week .
A: I thought you said beginning of n
B: I mean .
A: Yeah .
B: Anyway , w let 's talk separately about how t
A: Yeah , I have a busy weekend
A: but after that <comment> Yeah ,
A: gung - ho .
C: OK . Yeah , so so someti sometime next week .
A: Great ,
C: Now if it turns out that that effort leads us into some big hole that 's fine .
A: Mm - hmm .
A: OK .
C: You know , if you say we 're we 're dump dump dump .
C: There 's a really hard problem
C: we haven't solved yet C: that , that 's just fine .
A: OK .
B: Mm - hmm .
A: But at at least sort of try and work out what the state of the art is right now .
C: Right , t t if to the extent that we have it , let 's write it
A: OK .
C: and to the extent we don't , let 's find out what we need to do .
A: OK .
C: So , uh
E: Can we ? Is it worth thinking of an example out of our tourism thing domain , that involves a a a decent mental space shift or setting up C: I think it is ,
C: but uh but I interrupted before Keith got to tell us what happened with " where is the Powder - Tower ? " or whatever
B: Right .
A: Well . Uh , what was supposed to happen ?
A: I 've sort of been actually caught up in some other ones ,
A: so , um , you know , I don't have a write - up of or I haven't elaborated on the ideas that we were already talking about
E: Hmm , yeah . I think I think we already came to the conclusion that we have two alternative paths that we two alternative ways of representing it .
A: which were E: One is sort of a has a
E: um
A: It 's gone .
E: um
A: The question of whether the polysemy is sort of like in the construction or pragmatic .
B: One of them was th
B: Right .
E: or comes B: Right .
E: is resolved later .
E: Yeah .
A: I think it has to be the the second case .
E: Yeah .
A: Um , so d ' you Is it clear what we 're talking about here ?
B: I agree .
C: Uh A: The question is whether the construction is semantic or like ambiguous between asking for location and asking for path .
E: It 's B: So you might be yeah , y And asking for directions .
A: Um
E: Should we have a a a A: or or whether the construction semantically , uh , is clearly only asking for location
B: Uh A: but pragmatically that 's construed as meaning " tell me how to get there " .
C: Mm - hmm .
E: So assume these are two , uh , nodes we can observe in the Bayes - net .
C: Yep .
B: Yeah .
C: Right .
E: So these are either true or false
E: and it 's also just true or false .
E: If we encounter a phrase such as " where is X ? " , should that set this to true and this to true ,
E: and the Bayes - net figures out which under the c situation in general is more likely ?
E: Um , or should it just activate this , have this be false ,
E: and the Bayes - net figures out whether this actually now means ?
C: Uh w that 's a s
C: OK , so that 's a that 's a separate issue .
B: Slightly different .
A: OK .
C: So I a I I th I agree with you that , um , it 's a disaster to try to make separate constructions for every uh , pragmatic reading ,
A: Mm - hmm .
C: although there are some that will need to be there .
B: Good .
B: Mm - hmm .
A: Right .
B: Right .
C: I mean , there there 's some that B: Or have every construction list all the possible pragmatic implications of the same one .
C: You can't do that either .
C: Yeah .
B: Right .
B: Yeah .
C: But , you know , c um almost certainly " can you pass the salt " is a construction worth noting that there is this th this this this uh
A: Yeah .
B: Request .
A: Mm - hmm . Yeah .
B: Very yeah .
A: So right , this one is maybe in the gray area .
A: Is it is it like that or is it just sort of obvious from world knowledge that no one you wouldn't want to know the location without wanting to know how to get there or whatever .
C: Ri
B: Mmm .
C: Yeah .
E: One
E: Or in some cases , it 's it 's quite definitely
C: Yeah .
E: s so that you just know wanna know where it is .
A: Yeah .
A: Well the question is basically , is this conventional or conversational implicature ?
C: Exactly . Yeah .
B: Might be , yeah .
C: And I guess , see , the more important thing at this stage is that we should be able to know how we would handle it in ei
C: f in the short run it 's more important to know how we would treat technically what we would do if we decided A and what we would do if we decided B , than it is t to decide A or B r right now .
B: Right .
A: OK , right .
B: Right .
B: Which one it is .
A: Which of that is . <comment> Yeah , OK
E: Hmm .
B: Cuz there will be other k examples that are one way or the other . Right .
C: W we know for sure that we have to be able to do both .
A: Yeah .
C: So I guess In the short run , let 's let 's be real clear on h what the two alternatives would be .
A: OK .
E: And then the we had another idea floating around um , which we wanted to , uh , get your input on ,
E: and that concerns the E: But the nice thing is w we would have a person that would like to work on it ,
E: and that 's Ir - Irina Gurevich from EML who is going to be visiting us , uh , the week before , uh , August
E: and a little bit into August .
E: And she would like to apply the ontology that is , um being crafted at EML .
E: That 's not the one I sent you .
E: The one I sent you was from GMD , out of a European CRUMPET .
C: It was terrible .
E: Agreed .
E: Um , and one of the reas one of the those ideas was ,
E: so ,
E: back to the old Johno observation that if y if you have a dialogue history and it said the word " admission fee " was uh , mentioned um , it 's more likely that the person actually wants to enter than just take a picture of it
E: from the outside .
E: Now what could imagine to , you know , have a list for each construction of things that one should look up in the discourse history , yeah ?
E: That 's the really stupid way .
E: Then there is the really clever way that was suggested by Keith
E: and then there is the , uh , middle way that I 'm suggesting
E: and that is you you get X , which is whatever ,
E: the castle .
E: The ontology will tell us that castles have opening hours ,
E: that they have admission fees ,
E: they have whatever .
E: And then , this is We go via a thesaurus
E: and look up certain linguistic surface structures that are related to these concepts
E: and feed those through the dialogue history
E: and check dynamically
E: for each e entity . We look it up check whether any of these were mentioned and then activate the corresponding nodes on the discourse side .
E: But Keith suggested that a a much cleaner way would be is , you know , to keep track of the discourse in such a way that you if you know that something like that ha has been mentioned before , this just a continues to add up ,
E: you know , in th in a A: So if someone mentions admission f fees , that activates an Enter schema which sticks around for a little while in your rep in the representation of what 's being talked about .
A: And then when someone asks " where is X ? " you 've already got the the Enter schema activated
C: Mm - hmm .
B: Kind of a priming
A: and you 're able to to conclude on it .
C: Yeah .
B: priming a spreading activation
C: Right .
A: Yeah .
C: Yeah . So that 's certainly more realistic .
C: I m I mean psychologically .
A: Right .
C: Now technically
A: Yeah .
C: Um
D: Well , uh , is it doesn't it seem like if you just managed the dialogue history with a a thread , that you know , kept track of ho of the activity of D: I mean , cuz it would the the thread would know what nodes like , needed to be activated ,
D: so it could just keep track of how long it 's been since something 's been mentioned , and automatically load it in .
C: Yeah .
C: You could do that .
C: Um .
C: But here 's here 's a way C: in th in the bl Bayes - net you could you could think about it this way , that if um at the time " admissions fee " was mentioned you could increase the probability that someone wanted to enter .
B: Turn prior on .
D: We - yeah th th that 's what I wa I wasn't I was I wasn't thinking in terms of Enter schemas .
D: I was just C: Fair enough , OK ,
C: but , but , in terms of the c c the current implementation C: right ?
C: so that
C: um
B: It would already be higher in the context .
C: th that th the the the conditional probability that someone C: So at the time you mentioned it C: This is this is essentially the Bayes - net equivalent of the spreading activation .
A: Mm - hmm .
A: Yeah .
C: It 's In some ways it 's not as good
C: but it 's the implementation we got .
A: Yeah , sure .
C: We don't have a connectionist implementation .
A: No , I mean
C: Now Now my guess is that it 's not a question of time but it is a question of whether another intervening object has been mentioned .
B: Yeah , relevance .
B: Yeah .
C: I mean , we could look at dialo
A: Yeah .
C: this is C: Of course the other thing we ha we do is , is we have this data coming
A: Yeah .
C: which probably will blow all our theories ,
C: but  but skipping that A: Yeah , right .
C: so so but my guess is what what 'll probably will happen , Here 's a here 's a proposed design . <comment> is that there 're certain constructions which , uh , for our purposes do change the probabilities of EVA decisions and various other kinds
C: and
C: th that the , uh , standard way that that the these contexts work is sort of stack - like or whatever ,
C: but that 's sort of the most recent thing .
C: And so it could be that when another uh , en tourist entity gets mentioned , you
B: Renew
C: re re essentially re - initiali you know , re - i essentially re - initialize the state .
D: Mmm .
B: Yeah .
A: Mm - hmm .
C: And of course i if we had a fancier one with multiple worlds you could have uh , you could keep track of what someone was uh saying about this and that .
C: You know , " I wanna go in the morning
A: Yeah .
C: I wanna "
A: " Here 's my plan for today .
A: Here 's my plan for tomorrow . "
C: Yeah , or Yeah , in the morning morning I I 'm planning t to go shopping ,
A: hypothetically .
C: in the afternoon to the Powder - Tower A: Yeah .
C: Uh , tal so I 'm talking about shopping
C: and then you say , uh , you know , well , um " What 's it cost ? " or something .
A: Mm - hmm .
C: Or C: Anyway .
C: So one could well imagine ,
C: but not yet .
A: Yeah .
C: But I do th think that the <comment> It 'll turn out that it 's gonna be depend pretty much on whether there 's been an override .
E: Yeah , I mean , if if you ask " how much does a train ride and and cinema around the vineyards cost ? " and then somebody tells you it 's sixty dollars and then you say " OK How much is , uh I would like to visit the " whatever , something completely different , " then I go to , you know , Point Reyes " ,
C: Yeah .
E: it it 's not more likely that you want to enter anything ,
E: but it 's , as a matter of fact , a complete rejection of entering by doing that .
C: Right .
B: Right .
C: Right .
A: Yeah .
B: So when you admit have admission fee and it changes something , it 's only for that particular It 's relational , right ?
B: It 's only for that particular object .
C: Yeah , I th th
C: Yeah .
C: Well , and and and the simple idea is that it 's on it 's only for m for the current uh , tourist e entity of instre interest .
B: Yeah .
A: Yeah .
B: Right .
E: Yeah . But that 's E: I mean this this function ,
E: so , has the current object been mentioned in in with a question about concerning its C: No , no . It 's it It goes the other d it goes in the other direction .
C: Is C: When th When the this is mentioned , the uh probability of of , let 's say , entering changes
B: Of that object .
C: changes .
B: For But B: Right .
D: You could just hav uh , just basically , ob it It observes an er , it sets the a node for " entered " or " true " or something ,
C: Yeah .
C: Yeah .
C: Now , uh But I think Ro - Robert 's right , that to determine that , OK ? you may well want to go through a th thesaurus
D: " discourse enter " .
C: and and C: So , if the issue is , if so now th this construction has been matched and you say " OK . Does this actually have any implications for our decisions ? " Then there 's another piece of code that presumably does that computation .
B: So , sort of forward chaining in a way , rather than backward .
C: Yeah . Yeah .
B: OK .
C: But but what 's Robert 's saying is is ,
C: and I think he 's right , <comment> is you don't want to try to build into the construction itself all the synonyms and all you know , all the wo
C: Uh
C: maybe .
C: I 'll have to think about that .
B: Hmm .
C: I don't know .
C: I mean it th I can thi I can think of arguments in either direction on that .
C: But somehow you want to do it .
E: Mm - hmm .
E: Well , it 's just another , sort of , construction side is how to get at the possible inferences we can draw from the discourse history
E: or changing of the probabilities , and - or B: Guess it 's like I g The other thing is , whether you have a m m user model that has , you know , whatever , a current plan , whatever , plans that had been discussed ,
B: and
B: I don't know ,
B: I mean D: What uh , what 's the argument for putting it in the construction ?
D: Is it just that the s synonym selection is better , or ?
C: Oh , wel Well , the ar the The argument is that you 're gonna have the C: If you 've recognized the word ,
C: you 've recognized the word , which means you have a lexical construction for it ,
C: so you could just as well tag the lexical construction with the fact that it 's a uh , you know , thirty percent increase in probability of entering .
C: You So you could you could you could invert invert the whole thing , so you s you tag that information on to the lexicon
D: Mmm .
D: Oh , I see .
C: since you had to recognize it anyway .
C: That that 's the argument in the other direction .
C: at at C: Yeah , and this is E: Even though uh the lexical construction itself out out of context , uh , won't do it .
E: I mean , y you have to keep track whether the person says
E: " But I but I 'm not interested in the opening times "
B: Yeah .
E: is sort of a more a V type .
C: Yeah there 's , yeah ther there 's that as well .
E: Yep .
E: Hmm .
E: So .
E: But , we 'll E: uh , we have time to E: This is a s just a sidetrack ,
E: but uh
E: I think it 's also something that people have not done before , is um , sort of abuse an ontology for these kinds of , uh , inferences , on
E: whether anything relevant to the current something has been  uh , has crept up in the dialogue history already , or not .
E: And , um
E: I have the , uh If we wanted to have that function in the dialogue hi dialogue module of SmartKom , I have the written consent of Jan to put it in there .
C: Good .
C: OK . <comment> Well , this this is highly relevant to someone 's thesis .
E: Yes ,
E: um . That 's uh , I 'm I 'm keeping on good terms with Jan .
C: You 've noticed that .
E: Yeah .
C: OK .
C: So the point is , it 's very likely that Robert 's thesis is going to be along these lines ,
C: and the local rules are if it 's your thesis , you get to decide how it 's done .
B: Oh , s
C: OK . So if , you know if this is seriously , if this becomes part of your thesis , you can say , hey we 're gonna do it this way , that 's the way it 's done .
E: Mmm .
B: Yay , it 's not me .
B: It 's always me when it 's someone 's thesis .
C: No , no , no !
C: No , no . We 've got a lot we 've got a lot of theses going .
A: There 's a few of us around now .
B: Now it 's not . Yay !
B: I know it is .
C: Yeah .
C: Right .
E: Well , let 's let 's talk after Friday the twenty - ninth .
E: Then we 'll see how f f
C: Right . So h he 's got a th he 's got a meet meeting in Germany with his thesis advisor .
B: Yeah , he said he 's gonna f finish his thesis by then .
A: Oh yeah .
E: Yeah .
E: I should try to finish it by then . Yeah .
C: Oh , right .
E: So .
C: Um .
C: Yeah . So I think in fact , That 's the other thing .
C: uh , this is this is , speaking of hard problems , <comment> this is a very good time um , to start trying to make explicit where construal comes in
C: and you know , where c where the construction per - se ends and where construal comes in ,
A: Mm - hmm .
E: Mm - hmm .
C: cuz this is clearly part of th
B: Yeah , we 've we 've done quite a bit of that .