Grad 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 .
Grad G: Mm - hmm .
Grad 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 .
Grad C: So this is sort of what it looks like 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 " . Right ?
Grad G: This is the uh what the action planner uses ?
Grad B: Right . Currently .
Grad G: This is OK .
Grad C: Currently .
Grad G: And is that and tha that 's changeable ? or not ?
Grad C: Yeah , well Grad G: Like are we adapting to it ?
Grad C: No .
Grad G: Or Grad C: We This is the output , sort of , of the natural language understanding ,
Grad G: Oh , yeah .
Grad C: right ?
Grad G: Uh - huh .
Grad C: the input into the action planning , as it is now .
Grad G: Mm - hmm . Mm - hmm .
Grad C: And what we are going to do , we going to and you can see here , and again for Johno please please focus the shadow ,
Grad B: OK .
Grad C: um we 're gon uh uh here you have the action and the domain object and w and on on Grad G: What did you think he was doing ?
Grad B: I just Grad G: OK , sorry .
Grad E: A laser pointer would be most appropriate here I think .
Grad C: Yeah I I um have I have no Undergrad D: Eee .
Grad B: Robert likes to be abstract and that 's what I just thought he was doing .
Grad G: You look up here .
Grad C: Sort of between here and here ,
Grad G: OK .
Grad 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 .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad C: So in the future Grad G: So it 's just an additional information Grad C: Exactly . 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 ,
Grad G: Right ? that doesn't hurt the current way . Mm - hmm . Mm - hmm .
Grad B: Which which we 're abbreviating as " RAD " .
Grad C: which is Grad G: Good .
Grad E: Rad !
Grad G: Hmm .
Grad F: So um you had like an action schema and a Source - Path - Goal schema ,
Grad G: Hmm . Hmm . Mm - hmm .
Grad F: right ? So how does this Source - Path - Goal schema fit into the uh action schema ? Like is it one of the tags there ?
Grad G: Yeah can you go back to that one ?
Grad B: So the Source - Path - Goal schema in this case , I 've if I understand how we described we set this up , um cuz we 've been arguing about it all week , but uh we 'll hold the the Well in this case it will hold the  I mean the the features I guess . I 'm not it 's hard for me to exactly s So basically that will store the the object that is w the Source will store the object that we 're going from , the Goal will store the the f
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad G: So the fillers of the role source .
Grad B: we 'll fill those in fill those roles in , right ?
Grad G: OK .
Grad C: Yeah .
Grad B: The S Action - schemas basically have extra See we so those are schemas exist because in case we need extra information 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 .
Grad G: OK , so th sorry I just don't kn um um um This is just uh XML mo notational but um the fact that it 's action schema and then sort of slash action schema that 's a whole entit
Grad B: That 's a block , yeah .
Grad G: That 's a block , whereas source is just an attribute ?
Grad C: No , no , no .
Grad G: Is that Grad C: Source is just not spelled out here . Source meaning Source will be uh will have a name , a type , maybe a dimensionality ,
Grad G: Oh , OK , OK .
Grad C: maybe canonical uh orientation Grad G: Uh - huh , uh - huh . OK could it it could also be blocked out then as Grad B: Yeah , the So Grad G: OK .
Grad B: Yeah .
Grad C: s Source it will be , you know we 'll f we know a lot about sources so we 'll put all of that in Source .
Grad G: OK .
Grad C: But it 's independent whether we are using the SPG schema in an Enter , View , or Approach mode , right ?
Grad G: Mm - hmm .
Grad C: This is just properties of the SPG {comment} schema . We can talk about Paths being the fastest , the quickest , the nicest and so forth , uh or or and the Trajector should be coming in there as well .
Grad G: OK .
Grad C: And then G the same about Goals .
Grad G: OK . So I guess the question is when you actually fill one of these out , it 'll be under action schema ? Those are It 's gonna be one y you 'll pick one of those for Grad B: Right .
Grad G: OK these are this is just a layout of the possible that could go play that role .
Grad B: Right , so the the the roles will be filled in with the schema
Grad C: Hmm ?
Grad G: OK , go it . Uh - huh .
Grad B: and then what actual a action is chosen is will be in the in the action schema section .
Grad G: OK . OK . S S OK , so one question . This was in this case it 's all um clear , sort of obvious , but you can think of the Enter , View and Approach as each having their roles , right ? the I mean it 's it 's implicit that the person that 's moving is doing entering viewing and approaching , but you know the usual thing is we have bindings between sort of they 're sort of like action specific roles and the more general Source - Path - Goal specific roles . So are we worrying about that or not for now ?
Grad C: Yes , yes . Since you bring it up now , we will worry about it .
Grad G: OK .
Grad C: Tell us more about it .
Grad G: OK .
Grad C: What do you what do you Grad G: What 's that ? Oh I guess it I I may be just um reading this and interpreting it into my head in the way that I 've always viewed things
Grad C: Hmm .
Grad E: Hmm .
Grad G: and that that may or may not be what you guys intended . But if it is , then the top block is sort of like um , you know , you have to list exactly what X - schema or in this action schema , there 'll be a certain one , that has its own s structure and maybe it has stuff about that specific to entering or viewing or approaching , but those could include roles like the thing that you 're viewing , the thing that you 're entering , the thing that you 're
Grad E: So very specific role names are " viewed thing " , " entered thing " Grad G: whatever , you know , that which are think think of enter , view and approach as frames
Grad C: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad G: and they have frame - specific parameters and and roles
Grad C: Yeah .
Grad G: and you can also describe them in a general way as Source - Path - Goal schema 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
Grad C: Mm - hmm . Mm - hmm , Mm - hmm , Mm - hmm .
Grad G: or how do they work in f terms of other things . So all of those have um basically f either specific frame specific roles or more general frame specific roles that might have binding . So the question is are um how to represent when things are linked in a certain way . So we know for Enter that there 's Container potentially involved
Grad C: Mm - hmm .
Grad G: and it 's not uh I don't know if you wanna have in the same level as the action schema SPG schema it it 's somewhere in there that you need to represent that there is some container 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 .
Grad C: Mm - hmm .
Grad G: So uh is there an easy way in this notation to show when there 's identity basically between things
Grad C: Yeah .
Grad G: and I di don't know if that 's something we need to invent or you know just Grad B: The wa wasn't there supposed to be a link in the
Grad F: Right .
Grad B: I don't know if this answers your question , I was just staring at this while you were talking , sorry .
Grad G: It 's OK .
Grad 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 so we could Grad C: Yeah . Um , well that 's that 's one one thing is that we can link up , 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 .
Grad G: Hmm .
Grad 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 ,
Grad G: Exactly . Right , right .
Grad C: and do we have means of of telling it within that a and the answer is absolutely .
Grad G: Right .
Grad C: The way we absolutely have those means that are even part of the M - three - L A API ,
Grad G: Yeah . Oh great . s Uh - huh .
Grad C: meaning we can reference . So meaning Grad G: Great . That 's exactly what is necessary .
Grad B: Yeah . St
Grad C: And um . This referencing thing however is of temporary nature because sooner or later the W - three - C will be finished with their X - path , uh , um , specification and then it 's going to be even much nicer . Then we have real means of pointing at an individual instantiation of one of our elements here
Grad G: Mm - hmm .
Grad C: and link it to another one , and this not only within a document but also via documents ,
Grad G: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad G: OK .
Grad C: and and all in a v very easy e homogenous framework .
Grad G: So you know happen to know how what what " sooner or later " means like in practice ?
Grad C: That 's but it 's soon .
Grad G: Or estimated . OK , OK .
Grad C: So it 's g it 's the spec is there and it 's gonna part of the M - three - L AP API filed by the end of this year so that this means we can start using it basically now . But this is a technical detail .
Grad G: Mm - hmm . So a pointer a way to really say pointers .
Grad B: Basically references from the roles in the schema the bottom schemas to the action schemas is wha uh I 'm assuming .
Grad G: Yeah . OK , yeah .
Grad C: Yeah . Yeah , 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 .
Grad G: OK . Uh - huh . Right .
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad G: So you have constraints that are dependent on the c actual s specific filler , uh , of some attribute .
Grad C: Mm - hmm , yeah . W Yeah e exactly . Um , you know this , of course , does not make sense in light of the Statue of Liberty ,
Grad G: Uh - huh .
Grad C: however it is uh you know sort of these sort of things are imaginable .
Grad E: Right .
Grad G: Tsk . Yeah .
Grad C: Yeah ?
Grad F: S So um , like are you gonna have similar schemas for FM
Grad G: Or the Gateway Arch in St .
Grad C: Yeah .
Grad G: Louis . So .
Grad F: like forced motion and caused action and stuff like you have for SPG ?
Grad C: Yeah .
Grad 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 , if it 's a forced motion then you have the other schema present in the Grad C: Um we have absolute No . We have absolutely no means of enforcing that , so it would be considered valid if we have an SPG action " Enter " and no SPG schema , but a forced action schema . Could happen .
Grad G: Whi - which is not bad , because I mean , that there 's multiple sens I mean that particular case , there 's mult there there 's a forced side of of that verb as well .
Grad C: Hmm . It maybe it means we had nothing to say about the Source - Path - Goal .
Grad F: OK .
Grad C: What 's also nice , and for a i for me in my mind it 's it 's crucially necessary , is that we can have multiple schemas and multiple action schemas in parallel .
Grad F: Right .
Grad C: And um we started thinking about going through our bakery questions , so when I say " is there a bakery here ? " 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 " and " B " , {comment} that person actually wants to buy something to eat there . Nuh ? And if these are two different schemas , IE the Source - Path - Goal schema of getting there and then the buying snacks schema , nuh ? Grad G: Would they both be listed here in Grad C: Yes .
Grad G: OK . Under so o under action schema there 's a list that can include both both things .
Grad B: Right .
Grad C: ye Yeah , they they would both schemas would appear , so what is the uh is is there a " buying s snacks " schema ?
Grad E: Snack action .
Grad G: That 's interesting .
Grad C: What is the uh  have
Grad G: What ?
Grad C: the buying snack schema ?
Grad E: See .
Undergrad D: Buying  buying his food Grad E: I 'm sure there 's a commercial event schema in there somewhere .
Grad G: Oop . I d f
Grad C: Yeah , a " commercial event " or something .
Grad G: Yeah I I Grad C: Yeah ? So uh  so we would we would instantiate the SPG schema with a Source - Path - Goal blah - blah - blah
Grad G: I see .
Grad C: and the buying event you know at which however that looks like , the place f thing to buy .
Grad G: Uh - huh . Uh - huh . Interesting . Would you say that the like I mean you could have a flat structure and just say these are two independent things , but there 's also this sort of like causal , well , so one is really facilitating the other and it 's part of a compound action of some kind , which has structure .
Grad C: Yeah . Now it 's technically possible that you can fit schema within schema , and schema within schemata Grad G: uh I I think that 's nicer for a lot of reasons but might be a pain so uh Grad C: um Well , for me it seems that uh r Yes .
Grad G: I mean there are truly times when you have two totally independent goals that they might express at once , but in this case it 's really like there 's a purpo means that you know f for achieving some other purpose .
Grad C: Well , if I 'm if I 'm recipient of such a message and I get a Source - Path - Goal where the goal is a bakery and then I get a commercial action which takes place in a bakery , right ? and and and they they are obviously , via identifiers , identified to be the same thing here .
Grad G: Uh - huh . Yeah . See that that bothers me that they 're the same thing .
Grad C: No , no , just the Yeah ?
Grad G: Yeah because they 're two different things one of which is l you could think of one a sub you know pru whatever pre - condition for the second .
Grad C: Yeah , yeah !
Grad G: Right . Yeah , yeah . So . So . OK . So there 's like levels of granularity . So uh there 's there 's um a single event of which they are both a part . And they 're independently they they are events which have very different characters as far as Source - Path - Goal whatever .
Grad C: Mm - hmm , yeah .
Grad G: So when you identify Source - Path - Goal and whatever , there 's gonna to be a desire , whatever , eating , hunger , whatever other frames you have involved , they have to match up in in nice ways . So it seems like each of them has its own internal structure and mapping to these schemas
Grad C: Mm - hmm .
Grad G: you know from the other But you know that 's just That 's just me .
Grad C: Well , I think we 're gonna hit a lot of interesting problems
Grad G: Like  I I Grad C: and as I prefaced it this is the result of one week of arguing about it
Grad G: Mm - hmm . Between you guys
Grad B: Yeah .
Grad G: uh
Grad C: and um and so Grad G: OK .
Grad E: Yeah I mean I I still am not entirely sure that I really fully grasp the syntax of this .
Grad B: Well it 's not it 's not actually a very actually , it doesn't actually Grad C: Um it occur it occurs to me that I mean ne
Grad E: You know , like what Right . Or the intended interpretation of this .
Grad C: um well I should have we should have added an ano an XML example ,
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad C: or some XML examples
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad G: yeah that would be that would be nice .
Grad C: and and this is on on a on on my list of things until next next week .
Grad E: OK .
Grad C: It 's also a question of the recursiveness and and a hier hierarchy um in there .
Grad G: Yeah . Yeah .
Grad C: Do we want the schemas just blump blump blump blump ? I mean it 's if we can actually you know get it so that we can , out of one utterance , activate more than one schema , I mean , then we 're already pretty good ,
Grad G: Mm - hmm .
Grad C: right ?
PhD A: Well well you have to be careful with that uh uh thing because uh I mean many actions presuppose some um almost infinitely many other actions . So if you go to a bakery you have a general intention of uh not being hungry .
Grad G: Yeah . Mayb - yeah .
PhD A: You have a specific intentions to cross the traffic light to get there .
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad G: Mm - hmm .
PhD A: You have a further specific intentions to left to lift your right foot
Grad C: Hmm ?
PhD A: and so uh uh I mean y you really have to focus on on on
Grad G: Right .
PhD A: and decide the level of of abstraction that that you aim at it kind of zero in on that ,
Grad C: Yeah .
Grad G: Right .
PhD A: and more or less ignore the rest , unless there is some implications that that you want to constant draw from from sub - tasks um that are relevant uh I mean but very difficult .
Grad G: M Th The other thing that I just thought of is that you could want to go to the bakery because you 're supposed to meet your friend there or som
PhD A: Yeah .
Grad C: Mm - hmm .
Grad G: you know so you like being able to infer the second thing is very useful and probably often right .
Grad B: Well the the the utterance was " is there a bakery around here ? " ,
Grad G: But having them separate Grad B: not " I want to go to a bakery . "
Grad G: Well maybe their friend said they were going to meet them in a bakery around the area .
PhD A: Right .
Grad G: And I 'm , yeah I 'm I 'm inventing contexts which are maybe unlikely ,
PhD A: Right .
Grad B: Sure it OK . Yeah .
Grad G: but yeah I mean like but it 's still the case that um you could you could override that default by giving extra information
Grad C: Mm - hmm , yeah .
Grad G: which is to me a reason why you would keep the inference of that separate from the knowledge of " OK they really want to know if there 's a bakery around here " ,
Grad C: Yeah .
Grad G: which is direct .
Grad C: Well there there there should never be a hard coded uh shortcut from the bakery question to the uh double schema thing ,
Grad G: Right .
Grad C: how uh And , as a matter of fact , when I have traveled with my friends we make these exactly these kinds of appointments .
Grad G: Mm - hmm .
Grad C: We o o
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
Grad G: Yeah . Exactly . It 's I met someone at the bakery you know in the Victoria Station t you know train station London before ,
PhD A: Right .
Grad E: Mm - hmm . Yep .
PhD A: Well . I have a question about the slot of the SPG action .
Grad G: yeah . It 's like PhD A: So the Enter - View - Approach the the the EVA um , those are fixed slots in this particular action . Every action of this kind will have a choice . Or or or or will it just um uh is it change Grad E: Every SPG every SPG action either is an Enter or a View or an Approach ,
PhD A: Right , right .
Grad C: Mm - hmm .
Grad E: right ?
PhD A: So so I I mean for for each particular action that you may want to characterize you would have some number of slots that define uh uh uh you know in some way what this action is all about .
Grad E: OK .
PhD A: It can be either A , B or C . Um . So is it a fixed number or or do you leave it open it could be between one and fifteen uh it 's it 's it 's flexible .
Grad C: Um , the uh Well , it sort of depends on on if you actually write down the the schema then you have to say it 's either one of them or it can be none , or it can be any of them . However the uh it seems to be sensible to me to r to view them as mutually exclusive um maybe even not .
Grad G: J Do you mean within the Source - Path - Goal actions ?
PhD A: uh ye uh uh b I uh I u I understand
Grad C: Yeah .
Grad G: Those three ?
PhD A: uh but Grad C: And um how how where is the end ? So that 's PhD A: No , no . There a a actually by I think my question is simpler than that , um is OK , so you have an SPG action and and it has three different um uh aspects um because you can either enter a building or view it or or approach it and touch it or something . Um now you define uh another action , it 's it 's called um uh s S P G - one
Grad C: Forced action or forced motion . Yeah .
PhD A: action  a different action . Um and this uh action - two would have various variable possibilities of interpreting what you would like to do . And i in in a way similar to either Enter - View - Approach you may want to send a letter , read a letter , or dictate a letter , let 's say . So , h
Grad B: Oh the OK uh maybe I 'd The uh These actions I don't know if I 'm gonna answer your question or not with this , but the categories inside of action schemas , so , SPG action is a category . Real although I think what we 're specifying here is this is a category where the actions " enter , view and approach " would fall into because they have a related Source - Path - Goal schema in our tourist domain . Cuz viewing in a tourist domain is going up to it and or actually going from one place to another to take a picture , in this in a PhD A: Right . Oh , s so it 's sort of automatic derived fr from the structure that that is built elsewhere .
Grad B: derived I don't know if I u
Grad E: This is a cate this a category structure here ,
Grad B: Right .
Grad E: right ? Action schema . What are some types of action schemas ? Well one of the types of action schemas is Source - Path - Goal action . And what are some types of that ? And an Enter , a View , an Approach .
Grad B: Right .
Grad C: Hmm .
Grad E: Those are all Source - Path - Goal actions .
Grad B: Inside of Enter there will be roles that can be filled basically . So if I want to go from outside to inside then you 'd have the roles that need to filled , where you 'd have a Source - Path - Goal set of roles . So you 'd the Source would be outside and Path is to the door or whatever , right ?
PhD A: Right .
Grad B: So if you wanted to have a new type of action you 'd create a new type of category . Then this category would we would put it or not necessarily We would put a new action in the m uh in the categories that in which it has the um Well , every action has a set of related schemas like Source - Path - Goal or force , whatever , right ?
Grad E: Mm - hmm .
PhD A: Right .
Grad B: So we would put " write a letter " in the categories uh that in which it had it w had uh schemas u
Grad E: There could be a communication event action or something like that
Grad B: Exactly .
Grad C: Mm - hmm .
Grad B: Schemas uh that of that type .
Grad E: and you could write it .
Grad B: And then later , you know , there the we have a communication event action where we 'd define it down there as Grad G: Hmm . So there 's a bit a redundancy , right ? in in which the things that go into a particular You have categories at the top under action schema and the things that go under a particular category are um supposed to have a corresponding schema definition for that type . So I guess what 's the function of having it up there too ? I mean I guess I 'm wondering whether You could just have under action schema you could just sort of say whatever you know it 's gonna be Enter , View or Approach or whatever number of things
Grad C: Mm - hmm .
Grad G: and pos partly because you need to know somewhere that those things fall into some categories . And it may be multiple categories as you say which is um the reason why it gets a little messy
Grad C: Yeah .
Grad G: um but if it has if it 's supposed to be categorized in category X then the corresponding schema X will be among the structures that that follow .
Grad B: Right . Well , this is one of things we were arguing about .
Grad C: Yeah .
Grad G: That 's like Grad C: th this is this r
Grad G: OK , sorry .
Grad C: this is this is more this is probably the way that th that 's the way that seemed more intuitive to Johno I guess
Grad G: You didn't tell me to Grad C: also for a while for
Grad G: Uh - huh . But now you guys have seen the light .
Grad C: No , no , no . Uh we have not we have not seen the light .
Grad B: No .
Grad G: So .
Grad B: The the reason One reason we 're doing it this way is in case there 's extra structure that 's in the Enter action that 's not captured by the schemas ,
Grad G: I it 's easy to go back and forth isn't it ? Uh - huh . I agree . Right . Right .
Grad B: right ?
Grad G: Which is why I would think you would say Enter and then just say all the things that are relevant specifically to Enter . And then the things that are abstract will be in the abstract things as well . And that 's why the bindings become useful .
Grad B: Right , but Grad E: Ri - You 'd like so you 're saying you could practically turn this structure inside out ? or something , or ?
Grad G: Um Ye - I see what you mean by that ,
Grad C: No basically w
Grad G: but I I don't if I would I would need to have t have that .
Grad C: Get get rid of the sort of SPG slash something uh or the sub - actions category ,
Grad G: Right .
Grad C: because what does that tell us ?
Grad G: Uh - huh . Yeah .
Grad C: Um and I agree that you know this is something we need to discuss ,
Grad G: I in fact what you could say is for Enter ,
Grad C: yeah .
Grad G: you could say " here , list all the kinds of schemas that on the category that Grad E: List all the parent categories .
Grad G: you know i list all the parent categories " . It 's just like a frame hierarchy ,
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad G: right ?
Grad C: Mm - hmm .
Grad G: like you have these blended frames . So you would say enter and you 'd say my parent frames are such - and - such , h and then those are the ones that actually you then actually define and say how the roles bind to your specific roles which will probably be f richer and fuller and have other stuff in there .
Grad E: Yeah . This sounds like a paper I 've read around here recently in terms of Grad G: Yeah it could be not a coincidence . Like I said , I 'm sure I 'm just hitting everything with a hammer that I developed ,
Grad E: Yeah .
Grad G: but I mean you know uh it 's I 'm just telling you what I think , you just hit the button and it 's like Grad C: And , I guess fr uh
Grad E: Yeah I mean but there 's a good question here . Like , I mean uh do you When do you need Damn this headset ! When you this uh , eh Grad G: Metacomment .
Grad E: Yeah . {comment} That 's all recorded . Um . Why do you Grad G: " Damn this project . " No just kidding .
Grad E: I don't know . Like How do I how do I come at this question ? Um . I just don't see why you would I mean does th Who uses this uh this data structure ? You know ? Like , do you say " alright I 'm going to uh  do an SPG action " . And then you know somebody ne either the computer or the user says " alright , well , I know I want to do a Source - Path - Goal action so what are my choices among that ? " And " oh , OK , so I can do an Enter - View - Approach " . It 's not like that , right ? It 's more like you say " I want to , uh  I want to do an Enter . "
Grad B: Well only one of Grad E: And then you 're more interested in knowing what the parent categories are of that . Right ? So that the um the uh sort of representation that you were just talking about seems more relevant to the kinds of things you would have to do ?
Grad B: I 'd I
Grad G: Hmm .
Grad B: I think I 'd I 'm not sure if I understand your question . Only one of those things are gonna be lit up when we pass this on . So only Enter will be Grad E: OK .
Grad B: if we if our if our module decided that Enter is the case , View and Approach will not be there .
Grad E: OK . OK .
Grad C: Well uh it 's it sort of came into my mind that sometimes even two could be on , and would be interesting .
Grad G: Yeah .
Grad C: um nevertheless um
Grad E: Mayb - Well maybe I 'm not understanding where this comes from and where this goes to .
Grad B: Well in that case , we can't we can't w if if Grad C: l let 's let 's not Grad G: OK .
Grad B: well the thing is if that 's the case we our I don't think our system can handle that currently .
Grad E: What are we doing with this ?
Grad C: No , not at all . But U s t So Grad E: In principle .
Grad G: " Approach and then enter . "
Grad C: the I think the in some sense we we ex get the task done extremely well
Grad G: Run like this uh Grad C: because this is exactly the discussion we need need .
Grad G: Mm - hmm .
Grad C: Period . No more qualifiers than that . So .
Grad G: No , this is the useful ,
Grad C: and um and and I th I hope
Grad G: you know , don don't worry .
Grad C: um uh let 's make a a a a sharper claim . We will not end this discussion anytime soon .
Grad G: Yeah , I can guarantee that .
Grad C: And it 's gonna get more and more complex the the l complexer and larger our domains get .
Grad E: Sigh .