I think we 've met before , like , I remember talking to you about Aspect or something like that at some point or other .  , apart from that , sort of the old gang , Johno and Bhaskara have been with us from from day one grad g: Yay ! grad e: Hi . grad c: and  they 're engaged in in various activities , some of which you will hear about today . Ami is  our counselor and spiritual guidance and  also interested in problems concerning reference of the more complex type , phd a: Well . grad c: And  hopefully it is by by means of Keith that we will be able to get a b a better formal and a better semantic  idea of what a construction is and  how we can make it work for us . Additionally his interest  surpasses  English because it also entails German , an extra capability of speaking and writing and understanding and reading that language . And  , is there anyone who doesn't know Nancy ? Do you do you know Nancy ? grad g: Me ? grad e: I know Nancy . grad g: What ? grad b: The " I don't know myself " joke . grad e: Man ! grad g: About me or you ? grad b: About me . grad g: It 's a grad c: And  Fey is with us as of six days ago officially ? undergrad d: Officially , grad c: Officially , undergrad d: yeah . grad c: but in reality already  much much longer and   next to some some more or less bureaucratic  stuff with the the data collection she 's also the wizard in the data collection  , grad g: Of Oz . grad c: we 're sticking with the term " wizard " , undergrad d: Yes .  , so we 're about to collect data and  the  s the following things have happened since we last met . grad c: what happened is that  , " A " , there was some confusion between you and Jerry with the that leading to your talking to Catherine Snow , and he was  he he agreed completely that some something confusing happened . It it 's exactly how you interpreted it , sort of s grad e: The list of majors in the department ? undergrad d: M m Majors ? grad c: Ma - majors , majors . undergrad d: Something I don't know about these grad g: The department has many mayors . grad c: Majors and  just sending the the little write - up that we did on to those email lists undergrad d: OK . grad c:  undergrad d: So it was really Carol Snow who was confused , not me and not Jerry . And  we have a little description of asking peop subjects to contact Fey for you know recruiting them for our thing and  there was some confusion as to the consent form , which is basically that that what what you just signed grad g: Right . grad c: and since we have one already  grad g: Did Jerry talk to you about maybe using our class ? the students in the undergrad class that he 's teaching ? grad c:  well he said  we definitely " yes " , grad g: e grad c: however there is always more people in a in a facul  in a department than are just taking his class or anybody else 's class at the moment grad g: Yeah . grad g: OK , but th I guess it 's that  people in his class cover a different set so than the c is the CogSci department that you were talking about ? undergrad d: I guess . See grad g:  reaching out to ? undergrad d: that 's what I suggested to him , that people like like Jerry and George and et cetera just grad g: Cuz we have you know people from other areas grad c: Yeah . undergrad d: Yeah or even I could you know I could do the actual grad c:   grad g: Cuz  I I know how to contact our students , undergrad d: That 's generally the way it 's done . grad g: so if there 's something that you 're sending out you can also s  send me a copy , grad c: Yeah . grad g: me or Bhaskara could either of us could post it to  is it undergrad d: A mailing list . grad g: if it 's a general solicitation that you know is just contact you then we can totally pro post it to the news group grad c:   undergrad d: That 's grad g: OK , so you 'll send it or something so . grad c: As a matter of fact , if you undergrad d: I can send it . grad c: if undergrad d: I 'll send it , grad g: You can send it to me . grad c: How however I suggest that if you if you look at your email carefully you may think you may find that you already have it . grad c: Anyhow ,  the  Yeah , not only Also we will talk about Linguistics and of course Computer Science . grad c:  and then , secondly , we had , you may remember ,  the problem with the re - phrasing , that subject always re - phrase sort of the task that  we gave them , grad b: Right . grad c: and so we had a meeting on Friday talking about how to avoid that , and it proved finally fruitful in the sense that we came up with a new scenario for how to get the the subject m to really have intentions and sort of to act upon those , and  there the idea is now that next actually we we need to hire one more person to actually do that job because it it 's getting more complicated . So if you know anyone interested in in what i 'm about to describe , tell that person to to write a mail to me or Jerry soon , fast .  the idea now is to sort of come up with a high level of sort of abstract tasks " go shopping "  " take in  a batch of art "  " visit do some sightseeing " blah - blah - blah - blah - blah , sort of analogous to what Fey has started in in in compiling compiling here and already she has already gone to the trouble of of anchoring it with specific  o  entities and real world places you will find in Heidelberg . So out of these f s these high level categories the subject can pick a couple , such as if if there is a cop  a category in emptying your roll of film , the person can then decide " OK , I wanna do that at this place " , sort of make up their own itinerary a and and tasks and the person is not allowed to take sort of this h high level category list with them , but  the person is able to take notes on a map that we will give him and the map will be a tourist 's sort of schematic representation with with symbols for the objects . And so , the person can maybe make a mental note that " ah yeah I wanted to go shopping here " and " I wanted to maybe take a picture of that " and " maybe  eat here " and then goes in and solves the task with the system , IE Fey , and  and we 're gonna try out that Any questions ? grad g: so  y you 'll have those say somewhere what their intention was so you still have the the nice thing about having data where you know what the actual intention was ? grad c:   grad g: But they will  There 's nothing that says you know " these are the things you want to do " so they 'll say " well these are the things I want to do " and Right , so they 'll have a little bit more natural interaction ? grad c: Hopefully . grad f: So they 'll be given this map , which means that they won't have to like ask the system for in for like high level information about where things are ? grad c: Yeah it 's a schematic tourist map . So it 'll be  i it 'll still require the that information and An grad g: It w it doesn't have like streets on it that would allow them to figure out their way grad c: N not not not really the street network . grad e: So you 're just saying like what part of town the things are in or whatever ? grad c: Yeah a and  the map is more a means for them to have the buildings and their names and maybe some ma ma major streets and their names grad g:   grad c: and we want to maybe ask them , if you have get it sort of isolated street the the , whatever , " River Street " , and they know that they have decided that , yes , that 's where they want to do this kind of action  that they have it with them and they can actually read them or sort of have the label for the object because it 's too hard to memorize all these st strange German names . And then we 're going to have another we 're gonna have w another trial run IE the first with that new setup tomorrow at two and we have a real interesting subject which is Ron Kay for who those who know him , he 's the founder of ICI . grad c: And he also approached me and he offered to help  our project and he was more thinking about some high level thinking tasks and I said " sure we need help you can come in as a subject " and he said " OK " . Which I 'll hopefully sort of scrape together t But , thanks to Fey , we already have sort of a nice blueprint and I can work with that . No ? No more questions ? grad e: I 'm not sure I totally understand this grad g: So what 's the s this is what you made , Fey ? grad c:  ? grad e: but I 'm not sure I totally understand everything that 's being talked about grad g: Like so So it 's just based on like the materials you had about Heidelberg . grad c:  are you familiar with with the with the very rough setup of the data ? grad e: but I I imagine I 'll c just catch on . undergrad d: Based on the web site , yeah , at the grad g: Oh OK there 's a web site grad c: experiment ? undergrad d: Right . grad g: and then you could like  figure out what the cate undergrad d: It 's a tourist information web site , grad e: this is where they 're supposed to undergrad d: so . grad c: The question is just sort of how do we get the tasks in their head that they have an intention of doing something and have a need to ask the system for something without giving them sort of a clear wording or phrasing of the task . grad c: Because what will happen then is that people repeat repeat , or as much as they can , of that phrasing . The The goals that we 've d you guys have been talking about are this these you know identifying which of three modes  their question  concerns . grad g: So it 's like the Enter versus View grad c: Yeah , we we we will sort of get a protocol of the prior interaction , grad g:  - huh . grad c: right ? That 's where the instructor , the person we are going to hire ,  and the subjects sit down together with these high level things grad g:  - huh . grad c: and so th the q first question for the subject is , " so these are things , you know , we thought a tourist can do . grad c: And the person can say " yeah , sure sh this is something I would do . Yeah ? and then we can sort of this s instructor can say " well ,  then you you may want to find out how to get over here grad g:   grad g: So the interaction beforehand will give them hints about how specific or how whatever though the kinds of questions that are going to ask during the actual session ? grad c: No . Just sort of OK , what what what would you like to buy and then  OK there you wanna buy a whatever cuckoos clocks grad g: Yeah . grad c: So the task then for that person is t finding out how to get there , right ? grad g:   grad c: And we know that the intention is to enter because we know that the person wants to buy a cuckoos clock . grad g: OK , that 's what  so like those tasks are all gonna be  unambiguous about which of the three modes . phd a: Well , so the idea is to try to get the actual phrasing that they might use and try to interfere as little as possible with their choice of words . In a sense that 's exactly the the the idea , phd a:   grad c: which is never possible in a in a s in a lab situation , phd a: Well , u u the one experiment th that that that I 've read somewhere , it was they u used pictures . We had exactly that on our list of possible way things so we  I even made a sort of a silly thing how that could work , how you control you are here you you want to know how to get someplace , and this is the place and it 's a museum and you want to do some and and and there 's a person looking at pictures . grad c: However , not only was the common census were among all participants of Friday 's meeting was it 's gonna be very laborious to to make these drawings for each different things , phd a: Right . grad c: all the different actions , if at all possible , and also people will get caught up in the pictures . phd a: I I 'm I 'm not saying it 's necessary but but  i   i you might be able to combine you know text  and and some sort of picture and also  I think it it will be a good idea to show them the text and kind of chew the task and then take the test away the the the the the text away grad c:   phd a: so that they are not  guided by by by what you wrote , grad c: We will phd a: but can come up with their with their own grad c: Yeah , they will have no more linguistic matter in front of them when they enter this room . Then I suggest we move on to the to we have   the EDU Project , let me make one more general remark , has sort of two two side   actions , its  action items that we 're do dealing with , one is modifying the SmartKom parser and the other one is modifying the SmartKom natural language generation module . And  this is not too complicated but I 'm just mentioning it put it in the framework because this is something we will talk about now .  , I have some news from the generation , do you have news from the parser ? grad f: not grad c: By that look I grad f: Yes , I would really p It would be better if I talked about it on Friday .  , did you run into problems or did you run into not h having time ? grad f: Yeah .  , meaning that Tilman Becker , who does the German one , actually took out some time and already did it in English for us . And so the version he 's sending us is already producing the English that 's needed to get by in version one point one . grad f: So I take it that was similar to the what what we did for the parsing ? grad c: Yeah . I I it even though the generator is a little bit more complex and it would have been , not changing one hundred words but maybe four hundred words , grad f: OK . grad c: but this this is I guess good news , and the  the time and especially Bhaskara and  and  Oh do I have it here ? No . It 's the last week of April until the fourth of May so it 's twenty - sixth through fourth . So it 's it 's extremely important that the two of you are also present in this town during that time . grad b: Wait , what what are the days ? April twenty - sixth to the May fourth ? grad c: Yeah , something like that . grad c: There is a d Isn't finals coming up then pretty much after that ? grad f: Finals was that . grad g: Yeah w it doesn't really have much meaning to grad students but final projects might . grad g: That grad c: Anyway , so this is grad b: Well I 'll be here working on something . Guaranteed , it 's just  will I be here , you know , in  I 'll be here too actually but phd a:  . grad c: No it 's just  you know they 're coming for us so that we can bug them grad g: Ye grad c: and ask them more questions and sit down together and write sensible code and they can give some nice talks and stuff . But  grad b: But it 's not like we need to be with them twenty - four hours a day s for the seven days that they 're here . It Just a mail that , you know , he 's sending me the the the stuff soon grad g: OK . grad c: and I and that 's also it 's it 's going to produce the concept - to - speech  blah - blah - blah information for necessary for one point one in English based on the English , you know , in English . grad c: we 're done ! " grad g: So that was like one of the first l You know , the first task was getting it working for English . grad c: when they have  changed the language model of the recognizer and the dictionary , then we can actually a put it all together grad g:   grad c: and you can speak into it and ask for TV and movie information grad e: Toll . grad c: and then when if if something actually happens and some answers come out , then we 're done . grad c: Then  grad g: Are they is it using the database ? the German TV movie . So all the actual data might be German names ? grad c:  well actually th  grad g: Or are they all like American TV programs ? grad c:  well grad e: I want to see " Die Dukes Von Hazard " grad c: The OK , so you don't know how the German dialogue  the German the demo dialogue actually works . It works the first thing is what 's , you know , showing on TV , and then the person is presented with what 's running on TV in Germany on that day , on that evening grad g:  -  ,   grad c: and so you take one look at it and then you say " well that 's really nothing there 's nothing for me there " " what 's running in the cinemas ? " So maybe there 's something better happening there . grad c: And then you get you 're shown what movies play which films , and it 's gonna be of course all the Heidelberg movies and what films they are actually showing . grad c: N grad g: It 's a  so would the generator , like the English language sentence of it is " these are the follow you know the following films are being shown " or something like that ? grad c: Yeah , but it in that sense it doesn't make In that case  it doesn't really make sense to read them out loud . grad c: But  it 'll tell you that this is what 's showing in Heidelberg and there you go . grad c: And the presentation agent will go " Hhh ! " Nuh ? grad g: OK . And then you pick pick a movie and and and it show shows you the times and you pick a time and you pick seats and all of this . grad c: But it 's so this time we we are at an advantage because it was a problem for the German system to incorporate all these English movie titles . grad c: Nuh ? But in English , that 's not really a problem , grad g: Right . grad c: unless we get some some topical German movies that have just come out and that are in their database . What 's the next thing ? grad b: e grad c: This is very rough but this is sort of what  Johno and I managed to come up with . The idea here is that grad b: This is the  s the schema of the XML here , not an example or something like that . grad c: Yeah this is not an XML this is sort of towards an a schema , grad e: OK . The idea is , so , imagine we have a library of schema such as the Source - Path - Goal and then we have forced  motion , we have cost action , grad e:   grad c: And they 're gonna be , you know , fleshed out in in their real ugly detail , Source - Path - Goal , 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 . This is a the fact that we 're calling this " action schema " right now should not entail that we are going to continue calling this " action schema " . But what that means is we have here first of all on the in the in the first iteration a stupid list of Source - Path - Goal actions grad b: Actions that can be categorized with or that are related to Source - Path - Goal . grad c: So a push may be in in in both you know push  in this or this  grad g: Forced motion and caused action for instance , grad c: Exactly . So this is something that , you know , may also be a res As a result of your work in the future , we may find out that , you know , there 're really s these subtle differences between  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 . It it is It was sort of a it gave us some headache , how do we avoid writing down that we have sort of the Enter Source - Path - Goal that this But this sort of gets the job done in that respect and maybe it is even conceptually somewhat adequate in a sense that  we 're talking about two different things . We 're talking more on the sort of intention level , up there , and more on the this is the your basic bone  schema , down there . When you point at the screen is it your shadow that I 'm supposed to look at ? grad g: Yeah . Whereas I keep looking where your hand is , and it doesn't grad c: Well , that wouldn't have helped you at all . grad b: Basically , what this is is that there 's an interface between what we are doing and the action planner grad e: Spit right here . 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 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  what the action planner uses ? grad b: Right . 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: 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:  we 're gon   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 b: Robert likes to be abstract and that 's what I just thought he was doing . grad c: so as you can see this is on one level and we are going to add another  " Struct " , if you want , IE a rich action description on that level . 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 . grad f: So  you had like an action schema and a Source - Path - Goal schema , grad g:  . grad f: right ? So how does this Source - Path - Goal schema fit into the  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 ,  cuz we 've been arguing about it all week , but  we 'll hold the the Well in this case it will hold the  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:   grad b: we 'll fill those in fill those roles in , right ? grad g: OK . 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    This is just  XML mo notational but  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 . Source meaning Source will be  will have a name , a type , maybe a dimensionality , grad g: Oh , OK , OK . OK could it it could also be blocked out then as grad b: Yeah , the So grad g: OK . 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 c: But it 's independent whether we are using the SPG schema in an Enter , View , or Approach mode , right ? grad g:   We can talk about Paths being the fastest , the quickest , the nicest and so forth ,  or or and the Trajector should be coming in there as well . 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:  ? grad g: OK , go it . grad b: and then what actual a action is chosen is will be in the in the action schema section . This was in this case it 's all  clear , sort of obvious , but you can think of the Enter , View and Approach as each having their roles , right ? the  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 . grad c: What do you what do you grad g: What 's that ? Oh I guess it I I may be just  reading this and interpreting it into my head in the way that I 've always viewed things grad c:  . But if it is , then the top block is sort of like  , 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:   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:   So all of those have  basically f either specific frame specific roles or more general frame specific roles that might have binding . grad g: and it 's not  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  you know goal  goal I guess in this case . grad g: So  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 b:  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 .  , well that 's that 's one one thing is that we can link up , think also that  we can have one or m as many as we want links from from the schema up to the s action  description of it . 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 . grad c: and do we have means of of telling it within that a and the answer is absolutely . grad c: The way we absolutely have those means that are even part of the M - three - L A API , grad g: Yeah . This referencing thing however is of temporary nature because sooner or later the W - three - C will be finished with their X - path , 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:   grad c: and link it to another one , and this not only within a document but also via documents , grad g:   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 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 . grad b: Basically references from the roles in the schema the bottom schemas to the action schemas is wha  I 'm assuming . Yeah ,  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: So you have constraints that are dependent on the c actual s specific filler , of some attribute .  , you know this , of course , does not make sense in light of the Statue of Liberty , grad g:  - huh . grad c: Yeah ? grad f: S So  , like are you gonna have similar schemas for FM grad g: Or the Gateway Arch in St . 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:  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 . grad g: Whi - which is not bad , because  , that there 's multiple sens  that particular case , there 's mult there there 's a forced side of of that verb as well . 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 c: And  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 " , 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 c: ye Yeah , they they would both schemas would appear , so what is the  is is there a " buying s snacks " schema ? grad e: Snack action . grad c: What is the  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: Yeah I I grad c: Yeah ? So  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 . Would you say that the like  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 . Now it 's technically possible that you can fit schema within schema , and schema within schemata grad g:  I I think that 's nicer for a lot of reasons but might be a pain so  grad c:  Well , for me it seems that  r Yes . grad g:  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 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 . And they 're independently they they are events which have very different characters as far as Source - Path - Goal whatever . 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:   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:   grad e: Yeah  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:  it occur it occurs to me that  ne grad e: You know , like what Right . grad c:  well I should have we should have added an ano an XML example , grad e: Yeah . grad c: and and this is on on a on on my list of things until next next week . grad c: It 's also a question of the recursiveness and and a hier hierarchy  in there . grad c: Do we want the schemas just blump blump blump blump ?  it 's if we can actually you know get it so that we can , out of one utterance , activate more than one schema , then we 're already pretty good , grad g:   grad c: right ? phd a: Well well you have to be careful with that   thing because   many actions presuppose some  almost infinitely many other actions . phd a: You have a further specific intentions to left to lift your right foot grad c:  ? phd a: and so    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 . 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  that are relevant   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 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 . grad g: And I 'm , yeah I 'm I 'm inventing contexts which are maybe unlikely , phd a: Right . grad g: but yeah  like but it 's still the case that  you could you could override that default by giving extra information grad c:  -  , 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 c: Well there there there should never be a hard coded  shortcut from the bakery question to the  double schema thing , grad g: Right . grad c: how  And , as a matter of fact , when I have traveled with my friends we make these exactly these kinds of appointments . It 's I met someone at the bakery you know in the Victoria Station t you know train station London before , phd a: Right . It 's like phd a: So the Enter - View - Approach the the the EVA  , those are fixed slots in this particular action . Or or or or will it just   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 e: right ? phd a: So so I  for for each particular action that you may want to characterize you would have some number of slots that define    you know in some way what this action is all about . So is it a fixed number or or do you leave it open it could be between one and fifteen  it 's it 's it 's flexible . grad c: the  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  it seems to be sensible to me to r to view them as mutually exclusive  maybe even not . grad g: J Do you mean within the Source - Path - Goal actions ? phd a:  ye   b I  I u I understand grad c: Yeah . grad g: Those three ? phd a:  but grad c: And  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 ,  is OK , so you have an SPG action and and it has three different   aspects  because you can either enter a building or view it or or approach it and touch it or something .  now you define  another action , it 's it 's called   s S P G - one grad c: Forced action or forced motion . 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  maybe I 'd The  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 . What are some types of action schemas ? Well one of the types of action schemas is Source - Path - Goal action . 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  in the categories that in which it has the  Well , every action has a set of related schemas like Source - Path - Goal or force , whatever , right ? grad e:   grad b: So we would put " write a letter " in the categories  that in which it had it w had  schemas u grad e: There could be a communication event action or something like that grad b: Exactly . 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:  . 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  supposed to have a corresponding schema definition for that type . So I guess what 's the function of having it up there too ?  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:   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  the reason why it gets a little messy grad c: Yeah . grad g:  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 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:  - huh . 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 ?  - huh . 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 . 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:  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  or the sub - actions category , grad g: Right . grad c:  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 . 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 . 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  you know  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  grad e: Yeah  but there 's a good question here . Like ,   do you When do you need Damn this headset ! When you this  , eh grad g: Metacomment . I just don't see why you would  does th Who uses this  this data structure ? You know ? Like , do you say " alright I 'm going to  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 ,  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  the  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:  . grad b: if we if our if our module decided that Enter is the case , View and Approach will not be there . grad c: Well  it 's it sort of came into my mind that sometimes even two could be on , and would be interesting . grad c:  nevertheless  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 . " grad c: the I think the in some sense we we ex get the task done extremely well grad g: Run like this  grad c: because this is exactly the discussion we need need . grad g: No , this is the useful , grad c: and  and and I th I hope grad g: you know , don don't worry . grad c: And it 's gonna get more and more complex the the l complexer and larger our domains get . grad b: The r  the in terms of why is it 's laid out like this versus some other grad c: the people grad e: Yeah . grad b:  that 's kind of a contentious point between the two of us but this is one wa so this is a way to link  the way these roles are filled out to the action . grad b: Because if we know that Enter is a t is an SPG action , grad e:   grad b: we know to look for an SPG schema and put the appropriate fill in the appropriate roles later on . grad g: And you could have also indicated that by saying " Enter , what are the kinds of action I am ? " grad c:  -  , 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  that come from other sources ? grad e: Again grad c: Yes because nobod no the modules don't grad g: Yeah .  grad c: This is this is a schema that defines XML messages that are passed from one module to another , grad g:   grad c: mainly meaning from the natural language understanding , or from the deep language understanding to the action planner . 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  you know entity can have which  , you know , entity can have which parents , and then So you always need the whole body of of y your model  to figure out what belongs to what . 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 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 e: I I would just like to ask  like , if it could happen for next time , just beca cuz I 'm new grad c:   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 XML examples for a a run through and and see how this this then translates , grad e: right ? And OK . grad c: And  is there more to be said ? I think  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  wha how do how does Professor Peter call that ? grad g: Yeah . grad c: The  hhh , silence su sublimination ? Throwing somebody up the stairs ? Have you never read the Peter 's Principle anyone here ? grad e: Nope . phd a: Oh ,  grad f: People reach their level of  max their level of at which they 're incompetent or whatever . grad c: OK , so we can promote Enter - View all all up a bit and and get rid of the  blah - blah - X - blah  asterisk sub - action item altogether . 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  on parallel to that that this approach seems to be  workable to me . grad g: Although  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  ROLLS so grad g: Bread rolls ? grad e: Oh you meant pastries , then ? grad b: Yeah , pastries is what I 'm talking about . grad e: Help ! grad g: I guess I 'll agree to that , then . grad g: I n Didn't you say something about Friday , grad c: Yeah . grad c: So it looks like you have not been partaking , the Monday at three o ' clock time has turned out to be not good anymore . So people have been thinking about an alternative time and the one we came up with is Friday two - thirty ? three ? What was it ? grad b: You have class until two , right ? so if we don't want him if we don't want him to run over here grad f:   grad c: Two - th Two - thirty - ish or three or Friday at three or something around that time . grad c: And I know that you have until three You 're busy ? grad e:  undergrad d: Yeah . Yeah  earlier on Friday is better but three you know  if it were a three or a three thirty time then I would take the three or whatever , grad c:   grad c: You are more than welcome if you think that this kind of discussion gets you anywhere in in your life then  you 're free to c undergrad d: It 's fascinating . " undergrad d: I 'm just glad that I don't have to work it out grad c:  undergrad d: because . grad c:  ? undergrad d: I 'm just glad that don't have to work it out myself , that I 'm not involved at all in the working out of it because . phd a: So it 's at Friday at three ? there that 's grad c: And  grad e: So already again this week , grad c: How diligent do we feel ? grad e: huh ? grad c: Yeah . So  clearly there 's I can talk about the  the parser changes on Friday at least , grad c: OK , Bhaskara will do the big show on Friday . grad g: And you guys will argue some more ? grad b: And between now and then yeah . grad g: and have some ? grad c: We will r grad e: Promise ? grad g: probably . grad g: And we 'll get the summary like , this the c you know , short version , like phd a: An - and I would like to second Keith 's request . grad g: S phd a: An example wo would be nice t to have kind of a detailed example . I 've I 've I 've I guess I 'm on record for promising that now . grad c: This is it and  grad b: The other good thing about it is Jerry can be on here on Friday and he can weigh in as well . and  if you can get that binding point also maybe with a nice example that would be helpful for Johno and me . let 's  yeah they 're grad c: Give us undergrad d: No problem , grad e: I think you 've got one on hand , undergrad d: yeah . grad c: Well the the the binding is technically no problem 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 , we should distill them out and put them where the schemas are . grad c: If there are things that you know are intention - specific , then we should put them up somewhere , a grad g: So , in general they 'll be bindings across both intentions and the actions . grad g: it 's like  Shastri would say you know binding is like an essential cognitive  process . grad g: So I don't think it will be isolated to one or the two , but you can definitely figure out where Yeah , sometimes things belong and So actually I 'm not sure I would be curious to see how separate the intention part and the action part are in the system . Like I know the whole thing is like intention lattice , or something like that , grad c:   grad g: right ? So is the ri right now are the ideas the rich rich the RAD or whatever is one you know potential block inside intention . grad g: and then that 's just one way to describe the the action part of it . grad c: it 's an an it 's it 's sort of grad g: Not just that you want to go from here to here , it 's that the action is what you intend grad c: Yeah . grad g: and this action consists of all com complicated modules and image schemas and whatever . And and there will be a a a relatively high level of redundancy grad g: So . which is , yeah , It 's fine grad 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 . grad c: Because you 're not gonna get anymore information out of the action a as you find it there in the domain object . grad c: But then again  in this case , the domain object may contain information that we don't really care about either . grad c: H But w we 'll see that then , and how how it sort of evolves . grad c:  if if people really like our our RAD ,  w what might happen is that they will get rid of that action thing completely , you know , and leave it up for us to get the parser input  grad 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 . grad g: Is the But what is the " why " ? grad e: It 's rad , even ! grad b: Why ? grad g: Why ? grad e: It happened to c be what it stands for . grad c: ye no but i undergrad d: Just think of it as as " wheel " in German . grad c: but if you if you if you work in th in that XML community it is a great acronym grad g: Do you see what  ? Like grad c: because it e evokes whatever RDF grad g: Oh . grad c: RDF is the biggest thing right ? That 's the rich sort of " Resource Description Framework " grad e: Oh " rich de " grad g: Oh . grad c: and  and also So , description , having the word d term " description " in there is wonderful , grad g:   grad g: But what if it 's not an action ? grad c: It 's it 's rad , undergrad d: Yeah all the kids 'll love it .  are the are the sample data that you guys showed sometime ago like the things maybe maybe you 're gonna run a trial tomorrow . Cuz it 'd be nice for me to like look if I 'm thinking about examples 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 . grad g: and maybe you 've posted it before but where would I look if I want to see ? grad c: Oh I You want audio ? grad g: You know . grad g: OK , well don't don't make it a high priority grad c: Yeah . grad g: I In fact if you just tell me like you know like two examples grad c:   grad g: y The the the representational problems are I 'm sure , will be there , grad c: OK