Grad B: The r uh the in terms of why is it 's laid out like this versus some other Grad C: the people Grad E: Yeah . Yeah .
Grad B: um that 's kind of a contentious point between the two of us but this is one wa so this is a way to link uh the way these roles are filled out to the action .
Grad E: In my view .
Grad B: Because if we know that Enter is a t is an SPG action ,
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad B: right ?
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad B: we know to look for an SPG schema and put the appropriate fill in the appropriate roles later on .
Grad E: Mm - hmm . Yeah .
Grad G: And you could have also indicated that by saying " Enter , what are the kinds of action I am ? "
Grad C: Mm - hmm , yeah .
Grad B: Right .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad G: Right ? So there 's just like sort of reverse organization , right ? So like unless @ @ Are there reasons why one is better than the other I mean that come from other sources ?
Grad E: Again Grad C: Yes because nobod no the modules don't Grad G: Yeah . uh
Grad C: This is this is a schema that defines XML messages that are passed from one module to another ,
Grad G: Mm - hmm .
Grad C: mainly meaning from the natural language understanding , or from the deep language understanding to the action planner .
Grad G: Mm - hmm .
Grad C: Now the the reason for for not using this approach is because you always will have to go back , each module will try have to go back to look up which uh you know entity can have which uh , you know , entity can have which parents , and then So you always need the whole body of of y your model um to figure out what belongs to what . Or you always send it along with it ,
Grad G: Mm - hmm . Mm - hmm .
Grad C: nuh ? So you always send up " here I am I am this person , and I can have these parents " in every message .
Grad G: Mm - hmm .
Grad C: which e
Grad G: OK , so it 's just like a pain to have to send it .
Grad C: It may or may not be a just a pain it 's it 's I 'm completely willing to to to throw all of this away
Grad G: OK , I understand .
Grad C: and completely redo it ,
Grad E: Well Grad C: you know and and and it after some iterations we may just do that .
Grad G: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: I I would just like to ask um like , if it could happen for next time , I mean , just beca cuz I 'm new
Grad C: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: and I don't really just I just don't know what to make of this and what this is for , and stuff like that , you know , so if someone could make an example of what would actually be in it ,
Grad C: Yeah .
Grad E: like first of all what modules are talking to each other using this ,
Grad C: Yeah , we I will promise for the next time to have fleshed out N {comment} XML examples for a a run through and and see how this this then translates ,
Grad E: right ? And OK .
Grad C: and how this can come about ,
Grad G: Be great .
Grad C: nuh ? including the sort of " miracle occurs here " um part .
Grad E: Right .
Grad C: And um is there more to be said ? I think um In principle what I I think that this approach does , and e e whether or not we take the Enter - View and we all throw up up the ladder um wha how do how does Professor Peter call that ?
Grad G: Yeah .
Grad C: The uh hhh , {comment} silence su sublimination ? Throwing somebody up the stairs ? Have you never read the Peter 's Principle anyone here ?
Grad E: Nope .
PhD A: Oh , uh
Grad F: People reach their level of uh max their level of at which they 're incompetent or whatever .
PhD A: Yeah .
Grad C: Maximum incompetence
PhD A: Yeah . Right , right .
Grad C: and then you can throw them up the stairs
Grad E: Alright .
Grad G: Oh !
Grad C: um . Yeah .
PhD A: Promote them , yeah .
Grad C: OK , so we can promote Enter - View all all up a bit and and get rid of the uh blah - blah - X - blah uh asterisk sub - action item altogether . No no problem with that
Grad E: OK .
Grad C: and we w we we will play around with all of them but the principal distinction between having the the pure schema and their instantiations on the one hand , and adding some whatever , more intention oriented specification um on parallel to that that this approach seems to be uh workable to me . I don't know . If you all share that opinion then that made my day much happier .
Grad B: This is a simple way to basically link uh roles to actions .
Grad G: Uh yeah wait R Yeah , yeah . That 's fine .
Grad B: That 's the that was the intent of of it , basically .
Grad E: Sure . Sure .
Grad G: Uh that 's true .
Grad C: Yeah .
Grad G: Although um roles Grad B: So I I do I 'm I 'm not Grad C: I 'm I 'm never happy when he uses the word " roles " ,
Grad G: Yeah I I Grad C: I 'm Grad G: Yeah . I was going to Grad B: I b I mean ROLLS so
Grad G: Bread rolls ?
Grad E: Oh you meant pastries , then ?
Grad B: Yeah , pastries is what I 'm talking about .
Grad G: Pastry oh ba oh the bak bakery example .
Undergrad D: Bakery . Bakery .
Grad E: This is the bakery example . Got it . Alright .
Grad G: I see . Right . OK .
Grad E: Help !
Grad G: I guess I 'll agree to that , then .
Grad C: OK . That 's all I have for today . Oh no , there 's one more issue . Bhaskara brought that one up . Meeting time rescheduling .

Summary: The team wanted to figure out how roles would be connected to actions. The thought that their current XML schema forced the model to look up, requiring the whole body of the model. The new idea they came up with was to create a parallel intention oriented specification in addition to the pure schema, which would allow for a more flexible schema.