C: right ?
C: Yeah .
E: Mm - hmm .
G: Right .
C: And um .
G: But they 're shown like on a screen .
G: It 's a I mean so would the generator ,
C: N
G: like the English language sentence of it is " these are the follow you know the following films are being shown " or something like that ?
C: Yeah , but it in that sense it doesn't make In that case uh it doesn't really make sense to read them out loud .
G: S
G: Right .
G: So it 'll just display C: if you 're displaying them .
G: OK .
G: So we don't have to worry about um C: But uh it 'll tell you that this is what 's showing in Heidelberg and there you go .
G: Yeah .
C: And the presentation agent will go " Hhh ! " <comment> Nuh ?
G: OK .
C: Like that the avatar .
G: OK .
C: And um .
C: And then you pick pick a movie and and and it show shows you the times
C: and you pick a time
C: and you pick seats and all of this .
C: So .
G: OK .
C: Pretty straightforward .
E: OK .
C: But it 's so this time we we are at an advantage
C: because it was a problem for the German system to incorporate all these English movie titles .
G: Yeah .
C: Nuh ?
G: Right .
C: But in English , that 's not really a problem ,
G: Mm - hmm .
C: unless we get some some topical German movies that have just come out and that are in their database .
G: Right .
C: So the person may select " Huehner Rennen " or whatever .
E: " Chicken Run " .
C: OK .
C: Then uh on to the modeling .
C: Right ?
B: Yeah , yeah , I guess .
C: Um then modeling ,
C: there it is .
E: OK . What 's the next thing ?
B: Yep .
B: e
C: This is very rough but this is sort of what um Johno and I managed to come up with .
C: The idea here is that B: This is the uh s the schema of the XML here ,
B: not an example or something like that .
C: Yeah this is not an XML
E: OK .
C: this is sort of towards an a schema ,
C: nuh ?
A: Right .
C: definition .
C: The idea is , so , imagine we have a library of schema
C: such as the Source - Path - Goal
C: and then we have forced uh motion ,
C: we have cost action ,
E: Mm - hmm .
G: Mm - hmm .
C: we have a whole library of schemas .
C: And they 're gonna be , you know , fleshed out in in their real ugly detail ,
C: Source - Path - Goal ,
C: and there 's gonna be s a lot of stuff on the Goal and blah - blah - blah , that a goal can be and so forth .
C: What we think is C: And all the names could should be taken " cum grano salis " .
C: So .
C: This is a C: the fact that we 're calling this " action schema " right now should not entail that we are going to continue calling this " action schema " .
C: But what that means is we have here first of all
C: on the in the in the first iteration a stupid list of Source - Path - Goal actions
B: Actions that can be categorized with B: or that are related to Source - Path - Goal .
C: wi
E: OK .
C: to that schema
G: Mm - hmm .
C: and we will have you know forced motion and cost action actions .
B: And then those actions can be in multiple categories at the same time if necessary .
C: So a push may be in in in both you know push uh in this or this
G: Forced motion and caused action for instance ,
C: uh C: Exactly .
G: OK .
C: Yeah .
C: Also , these things may or may not get their own structure in the future .
C: So this is something that , you know , may also be a res As a result of your work
C: in the future , we may find out that , you know , there 're really s these subtle differences between
C: um
C: even within the domain of entering in the light of a Source - Path - Goal schema , that we need to put in fill in additional structure up there .
C: But it gives us a nice handle .
C: So with this we can basically um you know s slaughter the cow any anyway we want .
C: Uh .
C: It it is It was sort of a it gave us some headache ,
C: how do we avoid writing down that we have sort of the Enter Source - Path - Goal
C: that this But this sort of gets the job done in that respect
C: and maybe it is even conceptually somewhat adequate in a sense that um we 're talking about two different things .
C: We 're talking more on the sort of intention level , up there ,
C: and more on the this is the your basic bone um schema , down there .
B: Uh one question , Robert .
B: When you point at the screen is it your shadow that I 'm supposed to look at ?
G: Yeah . It 's the shadow .
B: OK .
B: Whereas I keep looking where your hand is ,
B: and it doesn't C: Well , that wouldn't have helped you at all .
G: Right .
B: Yeah .
B: Basically , what this is is that there 's an interface between what we are doing and the action planner
E: Spit right here .
B: and right now the way the interface is " action go " and then they have the what the person claimed was the source and the person claimed as the goal passed on .
G: Mm - hmm .
B: And the problem is , is that the current system does not distinguish between goes of type " going into " , goes of type " want to go to a place where I can take a picture of " , et cetera .
C: So this is sort of what it looks like
C: now , some simple " Go " action from it from an object named " Peter 's Kirche " of the type " Church " to an object named " Powder - Tower " of the type " Tower " .
G: This is the uh what the action planner uses ?
C: Right ?
G: This is B: Right . Currently .
G: OK .
C: Currently .
G: And is that and tha that 's changeable ?
G: or not ?
C: Yeah , well G: Like are we adapting to it ?
G: Or C: No .
C: We This is the output , sort of , of the natural language understanding ,
G: Oh , yeah .
G: Uh - huh .
C: right ?
C: the input into the action planning , as it is now .
G: Mm - hmm .
G: Mm - hmm .
C: And what we are going to do ,
C: we going to C: and you can see here ,
C: and again for Johno please please focus the shadow ,
B: OK .
C: um we 're gon
C: uh uh
C: here you have the action and the domain object
C: and w and on on G: What did you think he was doing ?
G: OK , sorry .
B: I just E: A laser pointer would be most appropriate here I think .
D: Eee .
C: Yeah I I um have I have no B: Robert likes to be abstract
B: and that 's what I just thought he was doing .
G: You look up here .
G: OK .
C: Sort of between here and here ,
C: so as you can see this is on one level and we are going to add another um " Struct " , if you want , IE a rich action description on that level .
E: Mm - hmm .
C: So in the future G: So it 's just an additional information C: Exactly .
C: In the future though , the content of a hypothesis will not only be an object and an an action and a domain object but an action , a domain object , and a rich action description ,
G: Right ?
G: that doesn't hurt the current way .
G: Mm - hmm .
G: Mm - hmm .
C: which is B: Which which we 're abbreviating as " RAD " .
G: Good .
G: Hmm .
E: Rad !
F: So um you had like an action schema and a Source - Path - Goal schema ,
G: Hmm .
G: Hmm .
G: Mm - hmm .
F: right ?
F: So how does this Source - Path - Goal schema fit into the uh action schema ?
F: Like is it one of the tags there ?
G: Yeah can you go back to that one ?
B: So the Source - Path - Goal schema in this case ,
B: I 've if I understand how we described we set this up ,
B: um
B: cuz we 've been arguing about it all week ,
B: but uh we 'll hold the the B: Well in this case it will hold the  I mean the the features I guess .
B: I 'm not it 's hard for me to exactly s
B: So basically that will store the the object that is w
B: the Source will store the object that we 're going from ,
E: Mm - hmm .
B: the Goal will store the the f
G: So the fillers of the role source .
B: we 'll fill those in fill those roles in ,
G: OK .
B: right ?
C: Yeah .
B: The S Action - schemas basically have extra B: See we so those are schemas exist
B: because in case we need extra information
B: instead of just making it an attribute and which which is just one thing we we decided to make it 's own entity so that we could explode it out later on in case there is some structure that that we need to exploit .
G: OK , so th
G: sorry I just don't kn
G: um um um G: This is just uh XML mo notational
G: but um the fact that it 's action schema and then sort of slash action schema
G: that 's a whole entit
B: That 's a block ,
G: That 's a block ,
B: yeah .
G: whereas source is just an attribute ?
G: Is that C: No , no , no .
C: Source is just not spelled out here .
G: Oh , OK , OK .
C: Source meaning Source will be uh will have a name , a type , maybe a dimensionality ,
G: Uh - huh , uh - huh .
C: maybe canonical uh orientation G: OK could it it could also be blocked out then as B: Yeah ,
B: the So G: OK .
B: Yeah .
C: s Source it will be ,
C: you know we 'll f
C: we know a lot about sources
C: so we 'll put all of that in Source .
G: OK .
C: But it 's independent whether we are using the SPG schema in an Enter , View , or Approach mode ,
G: Mm - hmm .
C: right ?
C: This is just properties of the SPG <comment> schema .
C: We can talk about Paths being the fastest , the quickest , the nicest and so forth ,
C: uh or or and the Trajector should be coming in there as well .
G: OK .
C: And then G the same about Goals .
G: OK .
G: So I guess the question is when you actually fill one of these out , it 'll be under action schema ?
G: Those are G: It 's gonna be one y you 'll pick one of those for B: Right .
G: OK these are this is just a layout of the possible that could go play that role .
B: Right , so the the the roles will be filled in with the schema
C: Hmm ?
G: OK , go it .
G: Uh - huh .
B: and then what actual a action is chosen is will be in the in the action schema section .
G: OK .
G: OK .
G: S S
G: OK , so one question .
G: This was in this case it 's all um clear , sort of obvious ,
G: but you can think of the Enter , View and Approach as each having their roles ,
G: right ?
G: the I mean it 's it 's implicit that the person that 's moving is doing entering viewing and approaching ,
G: but you know the usual thing is we have bindings between sort of G: they 're sort of like action specific roles and the more general Source - Path - Goal specific roles .
G: So are we worrying about that or not for now ?
C: Yes , yes .
G: OK .
C: Since you bring it up now , we will worry about it .
G: OK .
C: Tell us more about it .
C: What do you what do you G: What 's that ?
G: Oh I guess it G: I I may be just um reading this and interpreting it into my head in the way that I 've always viewed things
C: Hmm .
E: Hmm .
G: and that that may or may not be what you guys intended .
G: But if it is , then the top block is sort of like
G: um , you know , you have to list exactly what X - schema
G: or in this action schema ,
G: there 'll be a certain one , that has its own s structure
G: and maybe it has stuff about that specific to entering or viewing or approaching ,
G: but those could include roles like the thing that you 're viewing , the thing that you 're entering , the thing that you 're
G: whatever ,
G: you know , that which are E: So very specific role names are " viewed thing " , " entered thing " G: think think of enter , view and approach as frames
G: and they have frame - specific parameters and and roles
E: Yeah .
C: Mm - hmm .
C: Yeah .
G: and you can also describe them in a general way as Source - Path - Goal schema
G: and maybe there 's other image schemas that you could you know add after this that you know , how do they work in terms of you know a force dynamics
C: Mm - hmm .
G: or how do they work in f terms of other things .
C: Mm - hmm , Mm - hmm , Mm - hmm .
G: So all of those have um basically f either specific frame specific roles or more general frame specific roles that might have binding .
G: So the question is are um how to represent when things are linked in a certain way .
G: So we know for Enter that there 's Container potentially involved
C: Mm - hmm .
G: and it 's not G: uh I don't know if you wanna have in the same level as the action schema SPG schema
G: it it 's somewhere in there that you need to represent that there is some container
G: and the interior of it corresponds to some part of the Source - Path - Goal um you know goal uh goal I guess in this case .
C: Mm - hmm .
G: So uh is there an easy way in this notation to show when there 's identity basically between things
C: Yeah .
G: and I di don't know if that 's something we need to invent
G: or you know just B: The B: wa wasn't there supposed to be a link in the
F: Right .
B: I don't know if this answers your question ,
B: I was just staring at this while you were talking ,
B: sorry .
G: It 's OK .
B: Uh a link between the action schema , a field in the s in the schema for the image schemas that would link us to which action schema we were supposed to use
B: so we could C: Yeah .
C: Um , well that 's that 's one one thing is that we can link up ,
C: think also that um we can have one or m as many as we want links from from the schema up to the s action um description of it .
G: Hmm .
C: But the notion I got from Nancy 's idea was that we may f find sort of concepts floating around i in the a action description of the action f " Enter " frame up there that are , e when you talk about the real world , actually identical to the goal of the the S Source - Path - Goal schema ,
G: Exactly .
G: Right , right .
C: and do we have means of of telling it within that
G: Right .
C: a and the answer is absolutely .
G: Yeah .
C: The way we absolutely have those means that are even part of the M - three - L A API ,
G: Oh great .
G: s Uh - huh .
C: meaning we can reference .
C: So meaning G: Great .
G: That 's exactly what is necessary .
B: Yeah .
C: And um .
B: St
C: This referencing thing however is of temporary nature
C: because sooner or later the W - three - C will be finished with their X - path , uh , um , specification
C: and then it 's going to be even much nicer .
C: Then we have real means of pointing at an individual instantiation of one of our elements here
G: Mm - hmm .
G: Mm - hmm .
C: and link it to another one , and this not only within a document but also via documents ,
E: Mm - hmm .
G: OK .
C: and and all in a v very easy e homogenous framework .
G: So you know happen to know how what what " sooner or later " means like in practice ?
C: That 's
G: Or estimated .
C: but it 's soon .
G: OK , OK .
C: So it 's g it 's the spec is there
C: and it 's gonna part of the M - three - L AP API filed by the end of this year
C: so that this means we can start using it basically now .
G: Mm - hmm .
C: But this is a technical detail .
G: So a pointer a way to really say pointers .
B: Basically references from the roles in the schema the bottom schemas to the action schemas is wha uh I 'm assuming .
G: Yeah .
G: OK , yeah .
C: Yeah .
C: Yeah ,
G: OK .
C: I mean personally , I 'm looking even more forward to the day when we 're going to have X forms , which l is a form of notation where it allows you to say that if the SPG action up there is Enter , then the goal type can never be a statue .
G: Uh - huh .
G: Right .
E: Mm - hmm .
G: So you have constraints that are dependent on the c actual s specific filler , uh , of some attribute .
C: Mm - hmm , yeah .
C: W
C: Yeah e exactly .
C: Um , you know this , of course , does not make sense in light of the Statue of Liberty ,
G: Uh - huh .
E: Right .
C: however it is uh you know sort of these sort of things are imaginable .
G: Tsk .
G: Yeah .
G: Or the Gateway Arch in St .
C: Yeah ?
F: S So um , like are you gonna have similar schemas for FM
G: Louis .
C: Yeah .
G: So .
F: like forced motion and caused action and stuff
F: like you have for SPG ?
C: Yeah .
F: And if so like can are you able to enforce that you know if if it 's if it 's SPG action then you have that schema ,
F: if it 's a forced motion then you have the other schema present in the C: Um we have absolute C: No .
C: We have absolutely no means of enforcing that ,
C: so it would be considered valid if we have an SPG action " Enter " and no SPG schema , but a forced action schema .
C: Could happen .
G: Whi - which is not bad ,
G: because I mean , that there 's multiple sens
G: I mean that particular case , there 's mult there there 's a forced side of of that verb as well .
C: Hmm .
C: It maybe it means we had nothing to say about the Source - Path - Goal .
F: OK .
C: What 's also nice , and for a i for me in my mind
C: it 's it 's crucially necessary , is that we can have multiple schemas and multiple action schemas in parallel .
F: Right .
C: And um we started thinking about going through our bakery questions ,
C: so when I say " is there a bakery here ? "
C: you know I do ultimately want our module to be able to first of all f tell the rest of the system " hey this person actually wants to go there "
C: and " B " , <comment> that person actually wants to buy something to eat there .
C: Nuh ?
C: And if these are two different schemas ,
C: IE the Source - Path - Goal schema of getting there and then the buying snacks schema ,
C: nuh ? G: Would they both be listed here in C: Yes .
G: OK .
G: Under so o under action schema there 's a list that can include both both things .
C: ye Yeah , they they would both schemas would appear ,
B: Right .
C: so what is the
E: Snack action .
C: uh is is there a " buying s snacks " schema ?
G: That 's interesting .
C: What is the uh  have
G: What ?
C: the buying snack schema ?
E: See .
D: Buying  buying his food E: I 'm sure there 's a commercial event schema in there somewhere .
G: Oop .
G: I d f
C: Yeah ,
C: a " commercial event " or something .
G: Yeah I I C: Yeah ?
C: So uh  so we would we would instantiate the SPG schema with a Source - Path - Goal blah - blah - blah
G: I see .
C: and the buying event you know at which however that looks like , the place f thing to buy .
G: Uh - huh .
G: Uh - huh .
G: Interesting .
G: Would you say that the like G: I mean you could have a flat structure and just say these are two independent things ,
G: but there 's also this sort of like causal ,
G: well , so one is really facilitating the other and it 's part of a compound action of some kind , which has structure .
C: Yeah .
C: Now it 's technically possible that you can fit schema within schema ,
G: uh I I think that 's nicer for a lot of reasons
C: and schema within schemata G: but might be a pain
G: so uh C: um
C: Well , for me it seems that uh G: I mean there are truly times when you have two totally independent goals that they might express at once ,
C: r Yes .
G: but in this case it 's really like there 's a purpo means that you know f for achieving some other purpose .
C: Well , if I 'm if I 'm recipient of such a message
C: and I get a Source - Path - Goal where the goal is a bakery
C: and then I get a commercial action which takes place in a bakery ,
C: right ?
G: Uh - huh .
C: and and and they they are obviously , via identifiers , identified to be the same thing here .
G: Yeah .
G: See that that bothers me that they 're the same thing .
C: No , no , just the C: Yeah ?
G: Yeah
G: because they 're two different things
G: one of which is l
G: you could think of one a sub you know pru whatever pre - condition for the second .
C: Yeah , yeah !
G: Right .
G: Yeah , yeah .
G: So . So . OK .
G: So there 's like levels of granularity .
G: So uh there 's there 's um a single event of which they are both a part .
G: And they 're independently they they are events which have very different characters as far as Source - Path - Goal whatever .