A: OK .
C: So um G: Like have it we 'll have it in writing .
G: So .
G: or , better , speech .
G: So .
C: This is it
C: and um
B: The other good thing about it is Jerry can be on here on Friday
B: and he can weigh in as well .
C: Yeah .
C: and um if you can get that binding point also maybe with a nice example that would be helpful for Johno and me .
G: Oh yeah
G: uh
G: OK .
G: let 's uh yeah they 're C: Give us D: No problem ,
E: I think you 've got one on hand ,
E: huh ?
D: yeah .
G: I have several in my head ,
G: yeah .
G: Always thinking about binding .
C: Well the the the binding is technically no problem
C: but it 's it for me it seems to be conceptually important that we find out if we can s if if there if there are things in there that are sort of a general nature ,
C: we should distill them out
G: Mm - hmm .
C: and put them where the schemas are .
C: If there are things that you know are intention - specific , then we should put them up somewhere ,
G: So , in general they 'll be bindings across both intentions and the actions .
C: a
C: Yep .
G: So C: That 's wonderful .
G: Yeah .
G: So it 's gen it 's general across all of these things
G: it 's like I mean Shastri would say you know binding is like an essential cognitive uh process .
C: Yeah .
G: So . Um .
C: OK .
G: So I don't think it will be isolated to one or the two ,
G: but you can definitely figure out where G: Yeah , sometimes things belong and G: So actually I 'm not sure G: I would be curious to see how separate the intention part and the action part are in the system .
G: Like I know the whole thing is like intention lattice , or something like that ,
C: Mm - hmm .
G: right ?
G: So is the ri right now are the ideas the rich rich the RAD or whatever is one you know potential block inside intention .
G: It 's still it 's still mainly intention hypothesis
C: Yeah .
C: Yeah .
G: and then that 's just one way to describe the the action part of it .
C: Yeah .
G: OK .
C: It 's B: It 's an a attempt to refine it basically .
C: And yeah ,
G: OK , great uh - huh .
C: it 's an an it 's it 's sort of G: Not just that you want to go from here to here ,
G: it 's that the action is what you intend
C: Yeah .
G: and this action consists of all com complicated modules and image schemas and whatever .
G: So .
C: Yeah . And and there will be a a a relatively high level of redundancy
C: in the sense that um ultimately one G: Mm - hmm .
G: which is ,
G: yeah , It 's fine
C: so th so that if we want to get really cocky we we will say " well if you really look at it , you just need our RAD . "
C: You can throw the rest away ,
G: Mm - hmm .
C: right ?
G: Right .
C: Because you 're not gonna get anymore information out of the action a as you find it there in the domain object .
G: Right .
G: Mm - hmm .
C: But then again um in this case , the domain object may contain information that we don't really care about either .
G: Mm - hmm .
C: So .
C: H But w we 'll see that then , and how how it sort of evolves .
G: Mm - hmm .
C: I mean if if people really like our our RAD ,
C: I mean w what might happen is that they will get rid of that action thing completely ,
C: you know , and leave it up for us to get the parser input um
G: Mmm . We know the things that make use of this thing so that we can just change them so that they make use of RAD .
C: Yeah .
C: Yeah .
G: I can't believe we 're using this term .
D: You don't have to use the acronym .
G: So I 'm like RAD !
G: Like every time I say it , it 's horrible .
G: OK .
G: I see what you mean .
C: Mm - hmm .
B: RAD 's a great term .
G: Is the G: But what is the " why " ?
E: It 's rad , even !
B: Why ?
G: Why ?
E: It happened to c be what it stands for .
C: Well B: It just happened to be the acronym .
G: Yeah . That 's doesn't make it a great term .
G: It 's just like those jokes where you have to work on both levels .
C: ye no but i
D: Just think of it as as " wheel " in German .
G: Do you see what I mean ?
C: but if you if you if you work in th in that XML community it is a great acronym
G: Like
C: because it e evokes whatever RDF G: Oh .
C: RDF is the biggest thing
C: right ?
C: That 's the rich sort of " Resource Description Framework "
E: Oh " rich de "
G: Oh .
C: and um and also C: So , description , having the word d term " description " in there is wonderful ,
G: Mm - hmm .
C: uh " rich " is also great ,
C: rwww .
F: Hmm .
B: Who doesn't like to be a
E: Everybody likes action .
G: Oh .
G: Yeah . OK .
B: Yeah .
E: Plus it 's hip .
G: But what if it 's not an action ?
E: The kids 'll like it .
D: Yeah all the kids 'll love it .
F: Hmm .
C: It 's it 's rad ,
C: yeah .
G: And intentions will be " RID " ?
G: Like ,
G: " OK " .
G: Um are the are the sample data that you guys showed sometime ago G: like the things G: maybe maybe you 're gonna run a trial tomorrow .
G: I mean , I 'm just wondering whether the ac some the actual sentences from this domain will be available .
G: Cuz it 'd be nice for me to like look if I 'm thinking about examples
G: I 'm mostly looking at child language which you know will have some overlap but not total with the kinds of things that you guys are getting .
G: So you showed some in this here before
C: Mm - hmm .
G: and maybe you 've posted it before
G: but where would I look if I want to see ?
C: Oh I You want audio ?
G: You know .
C: or do you want transcript ?
G: No just just transcript .
C: Yeah , well just transcript is just not available
C: because nobody has transcribed it yet .
G: Sorry .
G: Oh , OK .
C: Um I can e I can uh I 'll transcribe it though .
G: I take that back then .
C: It 's no problem .
G: OK , well don't don't make it a high priority G: I In fact if you just tell me like you know like two examples
C: Yeah .
G: I mean , y
C: Mm - hmm .
G: The the the representational problems are I 'm sure , will be there ,
C: OK .
G: like enough for me to think about .
G: So .
C: OK , so Friday ,
C: whoever wants and comes , and can .
G: OK .
E: OK .
G: Here .
C: This Friday .
G: OK .
C: The big parser show .
C: Now you can all turn off your