B: Yeah .
A: Yeah !
A: Hats ?
B: In terms of the research th research , it 's really it 's whatever the person who is doing the research wants to do .
A: Shirts .
B: So if if Jose is interested in that , that 's great .
B: But if if he 's not , that 's great too .
D: Yeah .
D: Yeah .
C: Yeah , yeah .
D: Um , I i I i I would actually kind of like us to wind it down , see if we can still get to the end of the , uh , birthdays thing there .
B: Catch some tea ?
B: Um .
D: So
B: Well , I had a couple things that I did wanna bring out .
D: OK .
B: One is , do we need to sign new these again ?
E: Well , it 's slightly different . So I I would say it would be a good idea .
E: Cuz it it 's slightly different .
A: Are they new ?
B: Yep .
A: Oh .
D: Oh , this morning we didn't sign anything cuz we said that if anybody had signed it already , we didn't have to .
B: Yeah , I I should 've checked with Jane first , but the ch the form has changed .
E: It 's slightly different .
D: Ah - oh .
B: So we may wanna have everyone sign the new form .
C: OK .
E: I had to make one B: Um , I had some things I wanted to talk about with the thresholding stuff I 'm doing .
B: But , if we 're in a hurry , we can put that off .
B: Um and then also anonymity , how we want to anonymize the data .
E: Well , should I I mean I have some results to present , but I mean I guess we won't have time to do that this time .
B: Uh .
E: But it seems like um the anonymization is uh , is also something that we might wanna discuss in greater length .
D: Um . I mean , wha what E: If if we 're about to wind down , I think what I would prefer is that we uh , delay the anonymization thing till next week ,
E: and I would like to present the results that I have on the overlaps .
A: We still have to do this , too , right ?
D: Right .
A: Digits ?
D: Right .
B: No - well , we don't have to do digits .
D: Well , why don't we D: Uh , so @ @ OK . @ @ <comment> It sounds like u uh , there were there were a couple technical things people would like to talk about .
D: Why don't we just take a couple minutes to to briefly <comment> do them , and then and then and then and then and then we B: OK , go ahead , Jane .
E: I 'd Oh , I 'd prefer to have more time for my results .
E: e Could I do that next week maybe ?
D: OK .
D: Oh , yeah . Sure .
E: OK , that 's what I 'm asking .
D: Oh yeah , yeah .
E: And I think the anonymization , if y if you want to proceed with that now , I just think that that 's that 's a discussion which also n really deserves a lo a you know , more that just a minute .
D: We could s
E: I really do think that ,
B: Mm - hmm .
E: because you raised a couple of possibilities yourself ,
E: you and I have discussed it previously ,
E: and there are different ways that people approach it , e and I think we should B: Alright .
B: We 're we 're just We 're getting enough data now that I 'd sort of like to do it now , before I get overwhelmed with once we decide how to do it
E: Well , OK .
B: going and dealing with it .
E: It 's just E: Yeah . OK . I I 'll give you the short version ,
E: but I do think it 's an issue that we can't resolve in five minutes .
B: Mm - hmm .
E: OK , so the the short thing is um , we have uh , tape recording uh , uh , sorry , digitized recor recordings .
E: Those we won't be able to change .
E: If someone says " Hey , Roger so - and - so " .
B: Right .
E: So that 's gonna stay that person 's name .
B: Yep .
E: Now , in terms of like the transcript ,
E: the question becomes what symbol are you gonna put in there for everybody 's name ,
E: and whether you 're gonna put it in the text where he says " Hey Roger " or are we gonna put that person 's anonymized name in instead ?
B: No , because then that would give you a mapping , and you don't wanna have a mapping .
E: OK , so first decision is , we 're gonna anonymize the same name for the speaker identifier and also in the text whenever the speaker 's name is mentioned .
B: No .
A: I don't B: Because that would give you a mapping between the speaker 's real name and the tag we 're using , and we don't want E: I I don't think you understood what I what I said .
B: OK .
E: So uh , so in within the context of an utterance , someone says " So , Roger , what do you think ? "
E: OK .
E: Then , uh , it seems to me that Well , maybe I uh it seems to me that if you change the name , the transcript 's gonna disagree with the audio , and you won't be able to use that .
B: We don't we wanna we ha we want the transcript to be " Roger " .
A: Right , you don't wanna do that .
B: Because if we made the the transcript be the tag that we 're using for Roger , someone who had the transcript and the audio would then have a mapping between the anonymized name and the real name , and we wanna avoid that .
A: Yeah .
E: OK , well , but then there 's this issue of if we 're gonna use this for a discourse type of thing , then and , you know , Liz was mentioning stuff in a previous meeting about gaze direction and who 's who 's the addressee and all , then to have " Roger " be the thing in the utterance and then actually have the speaker identifier who was " Roger " be " Frank " , that 's going to be really confusing and make it pretty much useless for discourse analysis .
B: Oh .
B: Ugh !
B: That 's a good point .
E: Now , if you want to , you know , I mean , in some cases , I I I know that Susan Ervin - Tripp in some of hers , uh , actually did do uh , um , a filter of the s signal where the person 's name was mentioned , except
D: Yeah Yeah , once you get to the publication you can certainly do that .
E: And and I cer and I So , I mean , the question then becomes one level back .
E: Um , how important is it for a person to be identified by first name versus full name ?
E: Well , on the one hand , uh , it 's not a full identity ,
E: we 're taking all these precautions , um and they 'll be taking precautions , which are probably even the more important ones , to they 'll be reviewing the transcripts , to see if there 's something they don't like <comment> OK .
E: So , maybe , uh , maybe that 's enough protection .
E: On the other hand , this is a small this is a small pool , and people who say things about topic X e who are researchers and well - known in the field , they 'll be identifiable and simply from the from the first name .
E: However , taking one step further back , they 'd be identifiable anyway , even if we changed all the names .
B: Right .
E: So , is it really , um <comment> You know ?
C: Mmm .
B: Ugh !
E: Now , in terms of like so I I did some results , which I 'll report on n next time , which do mention individual speakers by name .
B: Mm - hmm .
E: Now , there , the Human Subjects Committee is very precise .
E: You don't wanna mention subjects by name in published reports .
E: Now , it would be very possible for me to take those data put them in a in a study , and just change everybody 's name for the purpose of the publication .
E: And someone who looked D: You can go , you know , uh , " Z " uh , for instance .
E: Yeah , exactly .
E: Doesn't matter if D: Uh . Um , yeah , I mean , t it doesn't I mean , I 'm not knowledgeable about this ,
E: That 's the same thing you saw .
D: but it certainly doesn't bother me to have someone 's first name in in the in the transcript .
B: OK .
D: Uh , I think you don't wanna have their full name to be uh , listed .
E: Yeah , and and in the form that they sign , it does say " your first name may arise in the course of the meetings " .
D: And so B: Yeah .
A: Well D: Yeah .
D: So again , th the issue is if you 're tracking discourse things , you know , if someone says , uh , uh , " Frank said this " and then you wanna connect it to something later , you 've gotta have this part where that 's " Frank colon " .
E: Or " your name " .
B: Yeah , shoot !
D: Right ?
E: Yeah , and and you know , even more i i uh , immediate than that just being able to , uh Well , it just seems like to track track from one utterance to the next utterance who 's speaking and who 's speaking to whom , cuz that can be important .
B: Mm - hmm .
E: S i You know , " You raised the point , So - and - so " , it 's be kind of nice to be able to know who " you " was .
D: Yeah .
B: Shoot !
B: I I 'm thinking too much .
E: And ac <comment> and actually you remember furthermore , you remember last time we had this discussion of how you know , I was sort of avoiding mentioning people 's names ,
D: Yeah , I was too . Yeah .
E: and and it was and we made the decision that was kind of artificial .
E: Well , I mean , if we 're going to step in after the fact and change people 's names in the transcript , we 've basically done something one step worse .
B: Yep .
D: Yeah .
C: Yeah .
B: Well , I would sug I I don't wanna change the names in the transcript ,
E: Misleading .
B: but that 's because I 'm focused so much on the acoustics instead of on the discourse , and so I think that 's a really good point .
D: Yeah .
B: You 're right , this is going to require more thought .
D: Yeah .
D: L let me just back up this to make a a brief comment about the , uh , what we 're covering in the meeting .
D: Uh I realize when you 're doing this that uh I mean , I didn't realize that you had a bunch of things that you wanted to talk about .
D: Uh , and so , uh and so I was proceeding some somewhat at random , frankly .
D: So I think what would be helpful would be uh , i and I 'll I 'll mention this to to Liz and Andreas too , that um , before the meeting if anybody could send me , any any , uh , uh , agenda items that they were interested in and I 'll I 'll take the role of organizing them uh , into into the agenda ,
E: OK .
E: Sure .
D: but I 'd be very pleased to have everyone else completely make up the agenda .
D: I 've no desire to  to make it up ,
D: but if if no one 's told me things , then I 'm just proceeding from my my guesses , and and uh , and i ye yeah , I I 'm sorry it ended up with your out your time to I mean , I 'm just always asking Jose what he 's doing , you know , and  and so it 's  There 's uh , there 's obviously other things going on .
B: Mm - hmm .
E: Oh , it 's not a problem . Not a problem . Yeah .
E: I just I just couldn't do it in two minutes .
B: How will we how would the person who 's doing the transcript even know who they 're talking about ?
B: Do you know what I 'm saying ?
A: " The person who 's doing the transcript " <comment> The IBM people ?
B: Yeah .
B: I mean , so so how is that information gonna get labeled anyway ?
E: How do you mean , who what they 're who they 're talking about ?
E: How do you mean ?
B: I mean , so if I 'm saying in a meeting , " oh and Bob , by the way , wanted wanted to do so - and - so " ,
A: They 're just gonna write " Bob " on it or do @ @ B: if you 're doing B: Yeah , @ @ they 're just gonna write " Bob " .
B: And so . If you 're if you 're doing discourse analysis ,
E: They won't be able to change it themselves .
D: What ar how are they gonna do any of this ?
E: Well , I I 'm betting we 're gonna have huge chunks that are just totally un untranscribable by them .
B: Yeah , really .
D: I mean , they 're gonna say speaker - one , or speaker - two or speaker I mean I I B: Well , the current one they don't do speaker identity .
C: Yeah , I think A: They can't do that .
B: because in NaturallySpeaking , or , excuse me , in ViaVoice , it 's only one person .
B: and so in their current conventions there are no multiple speaker conventions .
D: So it may just be one long transcript of a bunch of words .
E: Oh . I think that My understanding from Yen
B: Yep .
E: Is it Yen - Ching ?
E: Is that how you pronounce her name ?
D: Uh Yu - Ching , Yu - Ching . Yeah .
E: Oh , uh Yu - Ching ?
E: Yu - Ching ?
B: y Yu - Ching .
E: was that um , they will that they will adopt the part of the conventions that that we discussed , where they put speaker identifier down .
E: But , you know , h they won't know these people ,
E: so I think it 's Well , they 'll they 'll adopt some convention
E: but we haven't specified to them E: So they 'll do something like speaker - one , speaker - two , is what
E: I bet , but I 'm betting there 'll be huge variations in the accuracy of of their labeling the speakers .
E: We 'll have to review the transcripts in any case .
D: And it and it may very well be I mean , since they 're not going to sit there and and and worry ab about , uh , it being the same speaker , they may very well go the eh the the first se the first time it changes to another speaker , that 'll be speaker - two .
E: Yeah .
D: And the next time it 'll be speaker - three even if it 's actually speaker - one .
E: You know E: Uh - huh .
E: You know , that would be a very practical solution on their part .
C: Yeah .
E: And and but then we would need to label it .
D: Yeah .
C: It 's a good idea .
E: And that 's OK .
B: Yeah we we can probably regenerate it pretty easily from the close - talking mikes .
C: Yeah . Yeah , I think E: Yes , I was thinking , the temp the time values of when it changes .
C: Yeah .
D: Yeah .
B: So . But I mean that doesn't This doesn't answer the the question .
C: Yeah .
D: But that E: That 'd be very efficient .
B: The p It 's a good point , " which what do you do for discourse tracking ? "
C: Because y y you don't know to know , eh you don't need to know what i what is the iden identification of the of the speakers . You only eh want to know B: Hmm .
B: For for acoustics you don't but for discourse you do .
D: Well , you do .
C: Ah , for discourse , yeah . Yeah . Yeah .
D: Yeah .
D: If if if if someone says , uh , " what what is Jose doing ? " and then Jose says something , you need to know that that was Jose responding .
C: Yeah , yeah .
C: Yeah .
C: Yeah . Yeah , yeah ,
C: yeah .
C: Yeah . Yeah ,
E: Mm - hmm .
D: Uh , so .
B: Ugh , <comment> that 's a problem .
C: Yeah .
E: Unless we adopt a different set of norms which is to not id to make a point of not identifying people by name , which then leads you to be more contextually ex explicit .
A: That would be hard .
E: Well , people are very flexible . You know ? I mean , so when we did this las last week , I felt that you know , now , Andreas may , uh , @ @ <comment> uh , he he i sometimes people think of something else at the same time and they miss a sentence or something , and and because he missed something , then he missed the r the initial introduction of who we were talking about , and was was unable to do the tracking .
A: Mm - hmm .
E: But I felt like most of us were doing the tracking and knew who we were talking about and we just weren't mentioning the name .
E: So , people are really flexible .
C: Yeah .
A: But , you know , like , at the beginning of this meeting Or , you I think said , you know , or s Liz , said something about um , uh , " is Mari gonna use the equipment ? "
E: Yeah ?
A: I mean , how would you say that ?
A: I mean , you have to really think , you know , about what you 're saying bef
B: if you wanted to anonymize .
C: Yeah . Yeah , is D: " Is you know who up in you know where ? "
A: Yeah . Yeah .
B: Mm - hmm .
D: Right ? Use the A: I think it would be really hard if we made a policy where we didn't say names , plus we 'd have to tell everybody else .
B: Yeah , darn !
B: I mean , what I was gonna say is that the other option is that we could bleep out the names .
E: Well , it
C: Yeah .
B: but then , again that kills your discourse analysis .
A: Right .
E: Uh - huh .
B: Ugh !
D: Yeah .
A: Yeah .
C: Yeah .
E: Yeah .
E: That 's that 's the issue .
A: I I think the I think I don't know , my own two cents worth is that you don't do anything about what 's in the recordings , you only anonymize to the extent you can , the speakers have signed the forms and all .
B: Well , but that but that as I said , that that that works great for the acoustics , but it it hurts you a lot for trying to do discourse .
E: Well .
E: Mm - hmm .
D: Yeah .
A: Why ?
C: Yeah .
B: Because you don't have a map of who 's talking versus their name that they 're being referred to .
D: Th - Bec
C: Yeah .
A: I thought we were gonna get it labelled speaker - one , speaker - two B: Sure but , h then you have to know that Jose is speaker - one and A: Why do you have to know his name ?
D: OK , so suppose someone says , " well I don't know if I really heard what uh , what Jose said . "
A: Yeah .
C: Yeah .
D: And then , Jose responds .
A: Yeah .
D: And part of your learning about the dialogue is Jose responding to it .
D: But it doesn't say " Jose " , it says " speaker - five " .
A: OK .
C: Yeah .
D: So uh u
C: Yeah .
A: Oh , I see , you wanna associated the word " Jose " in the dialogue with the fact that then he responded .
D: Right .
D: And so , if we pass out the data to someone else , and it says " speaker - five " there , we also have to pass them this little guide that says that speaker - five is Jose ,
B: Someone who 's doing discourse would wanna do that .
D: and if were gonna do that we might as well <comment> give them " Jose " say it was " Jose " .
B: And that violates our privacy .
C: Yeah .
C: Yeah .
E: Mm - hmm .
B: And that violates our privacy issue .
C: Yeah .
E: Yeah .
C: Yeah .
E: Now , I I think that we have these two phases in the in the data , which is the one which is o our use , University of Washington 's use , IBM , SRI .
D: Yeah .
E: And within that , it may be that it 's sufficient to not uh change the to not incorporate anonymization yet , but always , always in the publications we have to .
B: Mm - hmm .
E: And I think also , when we take it that next step and distribute it to the world , we have to .
E: But I but I don that 's that 's a long way from now and and it 's a matter of between now and then of d of deciding how B: Making some decisions ?
E: i i it You know , it may be s that we we 'll need to do something like actually X out that part of the um the audio , and just put in brackets " speaker - one " .
B: Yeah .
B: For the public one .
C: the ? ?
E: You know .
C: Yeah .
B: You know , what we could do also is have more than one version of release .
B: One that 's public and one one that requires licensing .
B: And so the licensed one would w we could it would be a sticky limitation .
E: Uh - huh .
B: You know , like E: I think that 's risky . I think that the public should be the same .
B: Well , we can talk about that later .
E: I think that when we do that world release , it should be the same .
D: I I agree .
D: I I agree with Jane .
E: For a bunch of reasons , legal .
D: I I think that we we have a need to have a consistent licensing policy of some sort , and E: But I also think a consistent licensing policy is important .
C: Yeah .
A: Well , one thing to to take into consideration is w are there any um For example , the people who are funding this work , they want this work to get out and be useful for discourse .
A: If we all of a sudden do this and then release it to the public and it 's not longer useful for discourse ,
A: you know B: Well , depending on how much editing we do , you might be able to still have it useful .
B: because for discourse you don't need the audio .
B: Right ?
B: So you could bleep out the names in the audio .
A: Mm - hmm .
B: and use the anonymized one through the transcript .
E: Excuse me . We we do need audio for discourse .
D: Uh .