elplaguister/DTS_pair_datasets · Datasets at Hugging Face

prev1 stringlengths 1 7.9k	prev2 stringlengths 1 7.9k ⌀	next1 stringlengths 1 7.9k	next2 stringlengths 1 7.9k ⌀	is_boundary bool 2 classes	session_id stringlengths 7 14
And then , um , over in your Bayes - net or whatever , when when the person says " where is it " , you 've already got , you know since they were talking about admission , and that evokes the idea of entering , um , then when they go and ask " where is it " , then you 're Enter node is already active	Mm - hmm.	because that 's what the person is thinking about.	Yeah.	false	QMSum_96
Mm - hmm.	because that 's what the person is thinking about.	Yeah.	I mean that 's the sort of cognitive linguistic - y way ,	false	QMSum_96
because that 's what the person is thinking about.	Yeah.	I mean that 's the sort of cognitive linguistic - y way ,	Yeah , e ultimately that 's also what we wanna get at.	false	QMSum_96
Yeah.	I mean that 's the sort of cognitive linguistic - y way ,	Yeah , e ultimately that 's also what we wanna get at.	and probably not practical.	false	QMSum_96
I mean that 's the sort of cognitive linguistic - y way ,	Yeah , e ultimately that 's also what we wanna get at.	and probably not practical.	I think that 's that 's the correct way. So , of course we have to keep memory of what was the last intention , and how does it fit to this , and what does it tell us , in terms of of the the what we 're examining.	false	QMSum_96
Yeah , e ultimately that 's also what we wanna get at.	and probably not practical.	I think that 's that 's the correct way. So , of course we have to keep memory of what was the last intention , and how does it fit to this , and what does it tell us , in terms of of the the what we 're examining.	Mm - hmm. Mmm , yeah.	false	QMSum_96
and probably not practical.	I think that 's that 's the correct way. So , of course we have to keep memory of what was the last intention , and how does it fit to this , and what does it tell us , in terms of of the the what we 're examining.	Mm - hmm. Mmm , yeah.	And furthermore , I mean we can idealize that , you know , people don't change topics ,	false	QMSum_96
I think that 's that 's the correct way. So , of course we have to keep memory of what was the last intention , and how does it fit to this , and what does it tell us , in terms of of the the what we 're examining.	Mm - hmm. Mmm , yeah.	And furthermore , I mean we can idealize that , you know , people don't change topics ,	Mm - hmm.	false	QMSum_96
Mm - hmm. Mmm , yeah.	And furthermore , I mean we can idealize that , you know , people don't change topics ,	Mm - hmm.	but they do. But , even th for that , there is a student of ours who 's doing a dialogue act um , recognition module.	false	QMSum_96
And furthermore , I mean we can idealize that , you know , people don't change topics ,	Mm - hmm.	but they do. But , even th for that , there is a student of ours who 's doing a dialogue act um , recognition module.	Right. Mm - hmm.	false	QMSum_96
Mm - hmm.	but they do. But , even th for that , there is a student of ours who 's doing a dialogue act um , recognition module.	Right. Mm - hmm.	So , maybe , we 're even in a position where we can take your approach , which is of course much better , as to say how how do these pieces	false	QMSum_96
but they do. But , even th for that , there is a student of ours who 's doing a dialogue act um , recognition module.	Right. Mm - hmm.	So , maybe , we 're even in a position where we can take your approach , which is of course much better , as to say how how do these pieces	Mmm. And much harder to r program.	false	QMSum_96
Right. Mm - hmm.	So , maybe , we 're even in a position where we can take your approach , which is of course much better , as to say how how do these pieces	Mmm. And much harder to r program.	Hmm ?	false	QMSum_96
So , maybe , we 're even in a position where we can take your approach , which is of course much better , as to say how how do these pieces	Mmm. And much harder to r program.	Hmm ?	And much harder to p to program.	false	QMSum_96
Mmm. And much harder to r program.	Hmm ?	And much harder to p to program.	Yeah. How how do these pieces fit together ? Uh - huh. And um. But , OK , nevertheless. So these are issues but we what we actually decided last week , is to , and this is , again , for your benefit is to um , pretend we have observed and parsed an utterance such as " where is the Powder - Tower " , or " where is the zoo " , and specify um , what what we think the the output uh , observe , out i input nodes for our Bayes - nets for the sub sub - D , for the discourse bit , should be. So that And I will I will then come up with the ontology side uh , bits and pieces , so that we can say , OK we we always just look at this utterance. That 's the only utterance we can do , it 's hard coded , like Srini , sort of hand parsed , hand crafted , but this is what we hope to be able to observe in general from utterances , and from ontologies , and then we can sort of fiddle with these things to see what it actually produces , in terms of output.	false	QMSum_96
Hmm ?	And much harder to p to program.	Yeah. How how do these pieces fit together ? Uh - huh. And um. But , OK , nevertheless. So these are issues but we what we actually decided last week , is to , and this is , again , for your benefit is to um , pretend we have observed and parsed an utterance such as " where is the Powder - Tower " , or " where is the zoo " , and specify um , what what we think the the output uh , observe , out i input nodes for our Bayes - nets for the sub sub - D , for the discourse bit , should be. So that And I will I will then come up with the ontology side uh , bits and pieces , so that we can say , OK we we always just look at this utterance. That 's the only utterance we can do , it 's hard coded , like Srini , sort of hand parsed , hand crafted , but this is what we hope to be able to observe in general from utterances , and from ontologies , and then we can sort of fiddle with these things to see what it actually produces , in terms of output.	Uh	false	QMSum_96
And much harder to p to program.	Yeah. How how do these pieces fit together ? Uh - huh. And um. But , OK , nevertheless. So these are issues but we what we actually decided last week , is to , and this is , again , for your benefit is to um , pretend we have observed and parsed an utterance such as " where is the Powder - Tower " , or " where is the zoo " , and specify um , what what we think the the output uh , observe , out i input nodes for our Bayes - nets for the sub sub - D , for the discourse bit , should be. So that And I will I will then come up with the ontology side uh , bits and pieces , so that we can say , OK we we always just look at this utterance. That 's the only utterance we can do , it 's hard coded , like Srini , sort of hand parsed , hand crafted , but this is what we hope to be able to observe in general from utterances , and from ontologies , and then we can sort of fiddle with these things to see what it actually produces , in terms of output.	Uh	So we need to find out what the " where is X " construction will give us in terms of semantics and Simspec type things.	false	QMSum_96
Yeah. How how do these pieces fit together ? Uh - huh. And um. But , OK , nevertheless. So these are issues but we what we actually decided last week , is to , and this is , again , for your benefit is to um , pretend we have observed and parsed an utterance such as " where is the Powder - Tower " , or " where is the zoo " , and specify um , what what we think the the output uh , observe , out i input nodes for our Bayes - nets for the sub sub - D , for the discourse bit , should be. So that And I will I will then come up with the ontology side uh , bits and pieces , so that we can say , OK we we always just look at this utterance. That 's the only utterance we can do , it 's hard coded , like Srini , sort of hand parsed , hand crafted , but this is what we hope to be able to observe in general from utterances , and from ontologies , and then we can sort of fiddle with these things to see what it actually produces , in terms of output.	Uh	So we need to find out what the " where is X " construction will give us in terms of semantics and Simspec type things.	Just OK. Just " where is X " ?	false	QMSum_96
Uh	So we need to find out what the " where is X " construction will give us in terms of semantics and Simspec type things.	Just OK. Just " where is X " ?	Mm - hmm.	false	QMSum_96
So we need to find out what the " where is X " construction will give us in terms of semantics and Simspec type things.	Just OK. Just " where is X " ?	Mm - hmm.	Or any variants of that.	false	QMSum_96
Just OK. Just " where is X " ?	Mm - hmm.	Or any variants of that.	Yeah. No ! Um , look at it this way , i Yeah. What did we decide. We decided sort of the the prototypical " where is X " , where you know , we don't really know , does he wanna go there , or just wanna know where it is.	false	QMSum_96
Mm - hmm.	Or any variants of that.	Yeah. No ! Um , look at it this way , i Yeah. What did we decide. We decided sort of the the prototypical " where is X " , where you know , we don't really know , does he wanna go there , or just wanna know where it is.	Well we were	false	QMSum_96
Or any variants of that.	Yeah. No ! Um , look at it this way , i Yeah. What did we decide. We decided sort of the the prototypical " where is X " , where you know , we don't really know , does he wanna go there , or just wanna know where it is.	Well we were	So the difference of " where is the railway station " , versus where where " where is Greenland ". Nuh ?	false	QMSum_96
Yeah. No ! Um , look at it this way , i Yeah. What did we decide. We decided sort of the the prototypical " where is X " , where you know , we don't really know , does he wanna go there , or just wanna know where it is.	Well we were	So the difference of " where is the railway station " , versus where where " where is Greenland ". Nuh ?	Mm - hmm.	false	QMSum_96
Well we were	So the difference of " where is the railway station " , versus where where " where is Greenland ". Nuh ?	Mm - hmm.	Uh s I was just dancing , sorry.	false	QMSum_96
So the difference of " where is the railway station " , versus where where " where is Greenland ". Nuh ?	Mm - hmm.	Uh s I was just dancing , sorry.	We 're not videotaping any of this. So.	false	QMSum_96
Mm - hmm.	Uh s I was just dancing , sorry.	We 're not videotaping any of this. So.	Uh ah	false	QMSum_96
Uh s I was just dancing , sorry.	We 're not videotaping any of this. So.	Uh ah	So , um , we 're supposed to I mean we 're talking about sort of anything that has the semantics of request for location , right ? actually ? Or , I mean , anyway , the node in the uh the ultimate , uh , in in the Bayes - net thing when you 're done , the the node that we 're talking about um , is one that says " request for location , true " , or something like that , right ? Um , and and exactly how that gets activated , you know , like whether we want the sentence " how do I get there ? " to activate that node or not , you know , that 's that 's sort of the issue that sort of the linguistic - y side has to deal with , right ?	false	QMSum_96
We 're not videotaping any of this. So.	Uh ah	So , um , we 're supposed to I mean we 're talking about sort of anything that has the semantics of request for location , right ? actually ? Or , I mean , anyway , the node in the uh the ultimate , uh , in in the Bayes - net thing when you 're done , the the node that we 're talking about um , is one that says " request for location , true " , or something like that , right ? Um , and and exactly how that gets activated , you know , like whether we want the sentence " how do I get there ? " to activate that node or not , you know , that 's that 's sort of the issue that sort of the linguistic - y side has to deal with , right ?	Yeah , but it Yea - Nnn Well actually more m more the other way around. We wanted something that represents uncertainty uh we in terms of going there or just wanting to know where it is , for example. Some generic information.	false	QMSum_96
Uh ah	So , um , we 're supposed to I mean we 're talking about sort of anything that has the semantics of request for location , right ? actually ? Or , I mean , anyway , the node in the uh the ultimate , uh , in in the Bayes - net thing when you 're done , the the node that we 're talking about um , is one that says " request for location , true " , or something like that , right ? Um , and and exactly how that gets activated , you know , like whether we want the sentence " how do I get there ? " to activate that node or not , you know , that 's that 's sort of the issue that sort of the linguistic - y side has to deal with , right ?	Yeah , but it Yea - Nnn Well actually more m more the other way around. We wanted something that represents uncertainty uh we in terms of going there or just wanting to know where it is , for example. Some generic information.	OK.	false	QMSum_96
So , um , we 're supposed to I mean we 're talking about sort of anything that has the semantics of request for location , right ? actually ? Or , I mean , anyway , the node in the uh the ultimate , uh , in in the Bayes - net thing when you 're done , the the node that we 're talking about um , is one that says " request for location , true " , or something like that , right ? Um , and and exactly how that gets activated , you know , like whether we want the sentence " how do I get there ? " to activate that node or not , you know , that 's that 's sort of the issue that sort of the linguistic - y side has to deal with , right ?	Yeah , but it Yea - Nnn Well actually more m more the other way around. We wanted something that represents uncertainty uh we in terms of going there or just wanting to know where it is , for example. Some generic information.	OK.	And so this is prototypically @ @ found in the " where is something " question , surface structure ,	false	QMSum_96
Yeah , but it Yea - Nnn Well actually more m more the other way around. We wanted something that represents uncertainty uh we in terms of going there or just wanting to know where it is , for example. Some generic information.	OK.	And so this is prototypically @ @ found in the " where is something " question , surface structure ,	OK.	false	QMSum_96
OK.	And so this is prototypically @ @ found in the " where is something " question , surface structure ,	OK.	We	false	QMSum_96
And so this is prototypically @ @ found in the " where is something " question , surface structure ,	OK.	We	which can be p you know , should be maps to something that activates both. I mean the idea is to	false	QMSum_96
OK.	We	which can be p you know , should be maps to something that activates both. I mean the idea is to	I don't	false	QMSum_96
We	which can be p you know , should be maps to something that activates both. I mean the idea is to	I don't	Alright , OK.	false	QMSum_96
which can be p you know , should be maps to something that activates both. I mean the idea is to	I don't	Alright , OK.	Hhh. I guess. I don't	false	QMSum_96
I don't	Alright , OK.	Hhh. I guess. I don't	let 's have it fit nicely with the paper.	false	QMSum_96
Alright , OK.	Hhh. I guess. I don't	let 's have it fit nicely with the paper.	I don't see unde how we would be able to distinguish between the two intentions just from the g utterance , though.	false	QMSum_96
Hhh. I guess. I don't	let 's have it fit nicely with the paper.	I don't see unde how we would be able to distinguish between the two intentions just from the g utterance , though.	The	false	QMSum_96
let 's have it fit nicely with the paper.	I don't see unde how we would be able to distinguish between the two intentions just from the g utterance , though.	The	I mean , uh bef or , before we don't before we cranked it through the Bayes - net. I mean.	false	QMSum_96
I don't see unde how we would be able to distinguish between the two intentions just from the g utterance , though.	The	I mean , uh bef or , before we don't before we cranked it through the Bayes - net. I mean.	Yeah , we we wouldn't. That 's exactly what we want.	false	QMSum_96
The	I mean , uh bef or , before we don't before we cranked it through the Bayes - net. I mean.	Yeah , we we wouldn't. That 's exactly what we want.	We would ?	false	QMSum_96
I mean , uh bef or , before we don't before we cranked it through the Bayes - net. I mean.	Yeah , we we wouldn't. That 's exactly what we want.	We would ?	We want to get No. We wouldn't.	false	QMSum_96
Yeah , we we wouldn't. That 's exactly what we want.	We would ?	We want to get No. We wouldn't.	OK , but then so basically it 's just a for every construction we have a node in the net , right ? And we turn on that node.	false	QMSum_96
We would ?	We want to get No. We wouldn't.	OK , but then so basically it 's just a for every construction we have a node in the net , right ? And we turn on that node.	Yeah. What what is this gonna	false	QMSum_96
We want to get No. We wouldn't.	OK , but then so basically it 's just a for every construction we have a node in the net , right ? And we turn on that node.	Yeah. What what is this gonna	Oy.	false	QMSum_96
OK , but then so basically it 's just a for every construction we have a node in the net , right ? And we turn on that node.	Yeah. What what is this gonna	Oy.	Exactly. What is the uh Well	false	QMSum_96
Yeah. What what is this gonna	Oy.	Exactly. What is the uh Well	And then given that we know that the construction has these two things , we can set up probabilities we can s basically define all the tables for ev for those	false	QMSum_96
Oy.	Exactly. What is the uh Well	And then given that we know that the construction has these two things , we can set up probabilities we can s basically define all the tables for ev for those	Yeah , it should be So we have um , i let 's assume we we call something like a loc - X node and a path - X node. And what we actually get if we just look at the discourse , " where is X " should activate or should	false	QMSum_96
Exactly. What is the uh Well	And then given that we know that the construction has these two things , we can set up probabilities we can s basically define all the tables for ev for those	Yeah , it should be So we have um , i let 's assume we we call something like a loc - X node and a path - X node. And what we actually get if we just look at the discourse , " where is X " should activate or should	Mmm.	false	QMSum_96
And then given that we know that the construction has these two things , we can set up probabilities we can s basically define all the tables for ev for those	Yeah , it should be So we have um , i let 's assume we we call something like a loc - X node and a path - X node. And what we actually get if we just look at the discourse , " where is X " should activate or should	Mmm.	Hmm. Should be both , whereas maybe " where is X located " , we find from the data , is always just asked when the person wants to know where it is , and " how do I get to " is always asked when the person just wants to know how to get there. Right ? So we want to sort of come up with what gets uh , input , and how inter in case of a " where is " question. So what what would the outcome of of your parser look like ? And , what other discourse information from the discourse history could we hope to get , squeeze out of that utterance ? So define the the input into the Bayes - net based on what the utterance , " where is X " , gives us. So definitely have an Entity node here which is activated via the ontology ,	false	QMSum_96
Yeah , it should be So we have um , i let 's assume we we call something like a loc - X node and a path - X node. And what we actually get if we just look at the discourse , " where is X " should activate or should	Mmm.	Hmm. Should be both , whereas maybe " where is X located " , we find from the data , is always just asked when the person wants to know where it is , and " how do I get to " is always asked when the person just wants to know how to get there. Right ? So we want to sort of come up with what gets uh , input , and how inter in case of a " where is " question. So what what would the outcome of of your parser look like ? And , what other discourse information from the discourse history could we hope to get , squeeze out of that utterance ? So define the the input into the Bayes - net based on what the utterance , " where is X " , gives us. So definitely have an Entity node here which is activated via the ontology ,	so " where is X " produces something that is s stands for X , whether it 's castle , bank , restroom , toilet , whatever. And then the ontology will tell us	false	QMSum_96
Mmm.	Hmm. Should be both , whereas maybe " where is X located " , we find from the data , is always just asked when the person wants to know where it is , and " how do I get to " is always asked when the person just wants to know how to get there. Right ? So we want to sort of come up with what gets uh , input , and how inter in case of a " where is " question. So what what would the outcome of of your parser look like ? And , what other discourse information from the discourse history could we hope to get , squeeze out of that utterance ? So define the the input into the Bayes - net based on what the utterance , " where is X " , gives us. So definitely have an Entity node here which is activated via the ontology ,	so " where is X " produces something that is s stands for X , whether it 's castle , bank , restroom , toilet , whatever. And then the ontology will tell us	That it has a location or something like that ? or th the ontology will tell us where actually it is located ?	false	QMSum_96
Hmm. Should be both , whereas maybe " where is X located " , we find from the data , is always just asked when the person wants to know where it is , and " how do I get to " is always asked when the person just wants to know how to get there. Right ? So we want to sort of come up with what gets uh , input , and how inter in case of a " where is " question. So what what would the outcome of of your parser look like ? And , what other discourse information from the discourse history could we hope to get , squeeze out of that utterance ? So define the the input into the Bayes - net based on what the utterance , " where is X " , gives us. So definitely have an Entity node here which is activated via the ontology ,	so " where is X " produces something that is s stands for X , whether it 's castle , bank , restroom , toilet , whatever. And then the ontology will tell us	That it has a location or something like that ? or th the ontology will tell us where actually it is located ?	No. Not at all.	false	QMSum_96
so " where is X " produces something that is s stands for X , whether it 's castle , bank , restroom , toilet , whatever. And then the ontology will tell us	That it has a location or something like that ? or th the ontology will tell us where actually it is located ?	No. Not at all.	OK.	false	QMSum_96
That it has a location or something like that ? or th the ontology will tell us where actually it is located ?	No. Not at all.	OK.	Where it is located , we have , a user proximity node here somewhere ,	false	QMSum_96
No. Not at all.	OK.	Where it is located , we have , a user proximity node here somewhere ,	OK. OK.	false	QMSum_96
OK.	Where it is located , we have , a user proximity node here somewhere ,	OK. OK.	e which tells us how far the user how far away the user is in respect to that uh entity.	false	QMSum_96
Where it is located , we have , a user proximity node here somewhere ,	OK. OK.	e which tells us how far the user how far away the user is in respect to that uh entity.	OK. So you 're talking about , for instance , the construction obviously involves this entity or refers refers to this entity ,	false	QMSum_96
OK. OK.	e which tells us how far the user how far away the user is in respect to that uh entity.	OK. So you 're talking about , for instance , the construction obviously involves this entity or refers refers to this entity ,	Mm - hmm.	false	QMSum_96
e which tells us how far the user how far away the user is in respect to that uh entity.	OK. So you 're talking about , for instance , the construction obviously involves this entity or refers refers to this entity ,	Mm - hmm.	and from the construction also you know that it is a location is or a thing thing that can be located. Right ? Ontology says this thing has a location slot. Sh - and that 's the thing that is being that is the content of the question that 's being queried by one interpretation of " where is X ". And another one is , um , path from current user current location to that location.	false	QMSum_96
OK. So you 're talking about , for instance , the construction obviously involves this entity or refers refers to this entity ,	Mm - hmm.	and from the construction also you know that it is a location is or a thing thing that can be located. Right ? Ontology says this thing has a location slot. Sh - and that 's the thing that is being that is the content of the question that 's being queried by one interpretation of " where is X ". And another one is , um , path from current user current location to that location.	Mm - hmm.	false	QMSum_96
Mm - hmm.	and from the construction also you know that it is a location is or a thing thing that can be located. Right ? Ontology says this thing has a location slot. Sh - and that 's the thing that is being that is the content of the question that 's being queried by one interpretation of " where is X ". And another one is , um , path from current user current location to that location.	Mm - hmm.	So. So is the question I mean it 's just that I 'm not sure what the Is the question , for this particular construction how we specify that that 's the information it provides ? Or or asked for ? b Both sides , right ?	false	QMSum_96
and from the construction also you know that it is a location is or a thing thing that can be located. Right ? Ontology says this thing has a location slot. Sh - and that 's the thing that is being that is the content of the question that 's being queried by one interpretation of " where is X ". And another one is , um , path from current user current location to that location.	Mm - hmm.	So. So is the question I mean it 's just that I 'm not sure what the Is the question , for this particular construction how we specify that that 's the information it provides ? Or or asked for ? b Both sides , right ?	Yeah , you don't need to even do that. It 's just sort of what what would be @ @ observed in uh in that case.	false	QMSum_96
Mm - hmm.	So. So is the question I mean it 's just that I 'm not sure what the Is the question , for this particular construction how we specify that that 's the information it provides ? Or or asked for ? b Both sides , right ?	Yeah , you don't need to even do that. It 's just sort of what what would be @ @ observed in uh in that case.	Observed when you heard the speaker say " where is X " , or when when that 's been parsed ?	false	QMSum_96
So. So is the question I mean it 's just that I 'm not sure what the Is the question , for this particular construction how we specify that that 's the information it provides ? Or or asked for ? b Both sides , right ?	Yeah , you don't need to even do that. It 's just sort of what what would be @ @ observed in uh in that case.	Observed when you heard the speaker say " where is X " , or when when that 's been parsed ?	Mm - hmm.	false	QMSum_96
Yeah , you don't need to even do that. It 's just sort of what what would be @ @ observed in uh in that case.	Observed when you heard the speaker say " where is X " , or when when that 's been parsed ?	Mm - hmm.	So these little circles you have by the D ? Is that ? OK. OK.	false	QMSum_96
Observed when you heard the speaker say " where is X " , or when when that 's been parsed ?	Mm - hmm.	So these little circles you have by the D ? Is that ? OK. OK.	That 's exactly what we 're looking for.	false	QMSum_96
Mm - hmm.	So these little circles you have by the D ? Is that ? OK. OK.	That 's exactly what we 're looking for.	I d I just I don't like having characterizing the constructions with location and path , or li characterizing them like that. Cuz you don't It seems like in the general case you wouldn't know how how to characterize them.	false	QMSum_96
So these little circles you have by the D ? Is that ? OK. OK.	That 's exactly what we 're looking for.	I d I just I don't like having characterizing the constructions with location and path , or li characterizing them like that. Cuz you don't It seems like in the general case you wouldn't know how how to characterize them.	You wouldn't.	false	QMSum_96
That 's exactly what we 're looking for.	I d I just I don't like having characterizing the constructions with location and path , or li characterizing them like that. Cuz you don't It seems like in the general case you wouldn't know how how to characterize them.	You wouldn't.	I mean or , for when. There could be an interpretation that we don't have a node for in the I mean it just seems like @ @ has to have uh a node for the construction and then let the chips fall where they may. Versus uh , saying , this construction either can mean location or path. And , in this cas and since since it can mean either of those things , it would light both of those up.	false	QMSum_96
I d I just I don't like having characterizing the constructions with location and path , or li characterizing them like that. Cuz you don't It seems like in the general case you wouldn't know how how to characterize them.	You wouldn't.	I mean or , for when. There could be an interpretation that we don't have a node for in the I mean it just seems like @ @ has to have uh a node for the construction and then let the chips fall where they may. Versus uh , saying , this construction either can mean location or path. And , in this cas and since since it can mean either of those things , it would light both of those up.	It 's the same.	false	QMSum_96
You wouldn't.	I mean or , for when. There could be an interpretation that we don't have a node for in the I mean it just seems like @ @ has to have uh a node for the construction and then let the chips fall where they may. Versus uh , saying , this construction either can mean location or path. And , in this cas and since since it can mean either of those things , it would light both of those up.	It 's the same.	Thoughts ? Questions ?	false	QMSum_96
I mean or , for when. There could be an interpretation that we don't have a node for in the I mean it just seems like @ @ has to have uh a node for the construction and then let the chips fall where they may. Versus uh , saying , this construction either can mean location or path. And , in this cas and since since it can mean either of those things , it would light both of those up.	It 's the same.	Thoughts ? Questions ?	I 'm thinking about it.	false	QMSum_96
It 's the same.	Thoughts ? Questions ?	I 'm thinking about it.	It will be the same.	false	QMSum_96
Thoughts ? Questions ?	I 'm thinking about it.	It will be the same.	Um	false	QMSum_96
I 'm thinking about it.	It will be the same.	Um	So I think r in here we have " I 'll go there " , right ?	false	QMSum_96
It will be the same.	Um	So I think r in here we have " I 'll go there " , right ?	Answers ?	false	QMSum_96
Um	So I think r in here we have " I 'll go there " , right ?	Answers ?	And we have our Info - on. So in my c my case , this would sort of make this happy , and this would make the Go - there happy. What you 're saying is we have a Where - X question , Where - X node , that makes both happy. Right ? That 's what you 're proposing , which is , in my mind just as fine. So w if we have a construction node , " where is X " , it 's gonna both get the po posterior probability that it 's Info - on up ,	false	QMSum_96
So I think r in here we have " I 'll go there " , right ?	Answers ?	And we have our Info - on. So in my c my case , this would sort of make this happy , and this would make the Go - there happy. What you 're saying is we have a Where - X question , Where - X node , that makes both happy. Right ? That 's what you 're proposing , which is , in my mind just as fine. So w if we have a construction node , " where is X " , it 's gonna both get the po posterior probability that it 's Info - on up ,	Mmm , yeah.	false	QMSum_96
Answers ?	And we have our Info - on. So in my c my case , this would sort of make this happy , and this would make the Go - there happy. What you 're saying is we have a Where - X question , Where - X node , that makes both happy. Right ? That 's what you 're proposing , which is , in my mind just as fine. So w if we have a construction node , " where is X " , it 's gonna both get the po posterior probability that it 's Info - on up ,	Mmm , yeah.	Info - on is True - up , and that Go - there is True - up , as well. Which would be exactly analogous to what I 'm proposing is , this makes uh makes something here true , and this makes something also something here true , and this makes this True - up , and this makes this True - up as well.	false	QMSum_96
And we have our Info - on. So in my c my case , this would sort of make this happy , and this would make the Go - there happy. What you 're saying is we have a Where - X question , Where - X node , that makes both happy. Right ? That 's what you 're proposing , which is , in my mind just as fine. So w if we have a construction node , " where is X " , it 's gonna both get the po posterior probability that it 's Info - on up ,	Mmm , yeah.	Info - on is True - up , and that Go - there is True - up , as well. Which would be exactly analogous to what I 'm proposing is , this makes uh makes something here true , and this makes something also something here true , and this makes this True - up , and this makes this True - up as well.	I kinda like it better without that extra level of indirection too. You know with with this points to this points to that , and so on because I don't know , it	false	QMSum_96
Mmm , yeah.	Info - on is True - up , and that Go - there is True - up , as well. Which would be exactly analogous to what I 'm proposing is , this makes uh makes something here true , and this makes something also something here true , and this makes this True - up , and this makes this True - up as well.	I kinda like it better without that extra level of indirection too. You know with with this points to this points to that , and so on because I don't know , it	Is - uh ,	false	QMSum_96
Info - on is True - up , and that Go - there is True - up , as well. Which would be exactly analogous to what I 'm proposing is , this makes uh makes something here true , and this makes something also something here true , and this makes this True - up , and this makes this True - up as well.	I kinda like it better without that extra level of indirection too. You know with with this points to this points to that , and so on because I don't know , it	Is - uh ,	Yeah , because we get we get tons of constructions I think. Because , you know , mmm people have many ways of asking for the same thing ,	false	QMSum_96
I kinda like it better without that extra level of indirection too. You know with with this points to this points to that , and so on because I don't know , it	Is - uh ,	Yeah , because we get we get tons of constructions I think. Because , you know , mmm people have many ways of asking for the same thing ,	Yeah.	false	QMSum_96
Is - uh ,	Yeah , because we get we get tons of constructions I think. Because , you know , mmm people have many ways of asking for the same thing ,	Yeah.	Yeah , sure.	false	QMSum_96
Yeah , because we get we get tons of constructions I think. Because , you know , mmm people have many ways of asking for the same thing ,	Yeah.	Yeah , sure.	Yeah.	false	QMSum_96
Yeah.	Yeah , sure.	Yeah.	and	false	QMSum_96
Yeah , sure.	Yeah.	and	So un	false	QMSum_96
Yeah.	and	So un	I change I changed my mind actually.	false	QMSum_96
and	So un	I change I changed my mind actually.	So I agree with that.	false	QMSum_96
So un	I change I changed my mind actually.	So I agree with that.	OK.	false	QMSum_96
I change I changed my mind actually.	So I agree with that.	OK.	I have a different kinda question , might be related , which is , OK so implicitly everything in EDU , we 're always inferring the speaker intent , right ? Like , what they want either , the information that they want , or It 's always information that they want probably , of some kind. Right ? Or I I don't know , or what 's something that they	false	QMSum_96
So I agree with that.	OK.	I have a different kinda question , might be related , which is , OK so implicitly everything in EDU , we 're always inferring the speaker intent , right ? Like , what they want either , the information that they want , or It 's always information that they want probably , of some kind. Right ? Or I I don't know , or what 's something that they	The system doesn't massage you , no. No.	false	QMSum_96
OK.	I have a different kinda question , might be related , which is , OK so implicitly everything in EDU , we 're always inferring the speaker intent , right ? Like , what they want either , the information that they want , or It 's always information that they want probably , of some kind. Right ? Or I I don't know , or what 's something that they	The system doesn't massage you , no. No.	I I I don't OK. So , um , let 's see. So I don't know if the I mean i if th just there 's more s here that 's not shown that you it 's already like part of the system whatever , but , " where is X " , like , the fact that it is , you know , a speech - act , whatever , it is a question. It 's a question that , um , queries on some particular thing X , and X is that location. There 's , like , a lot of structure in representing that.	false	QMSum_96
I have a different kinda question , might be related , which is , OK so implicitly everything in EDU , we 're always inferring the speaker intent , right ? Like , what they want either , the information that they want , or It 's always information that they want probably , of some kind. Right ? Or I I don't know , or what 's something that they	The system doesn't massage you , no. No.	I I I don't OK. So , um , let 's see. So I don't know if the I mean i if th just there 's more s here that 's not shown that you it 's already like part of the system whatever , but , " where is X " , like , the fact that it is , you know , a speech - act , whatever , it is a question. It 's a question that , um , queries on some particular thing X , and X is that location. There 's , like , a lot of structure in representing that.	Yep. Yeah.	false	QMSum_96
The system doesn't massage you , no. No.	I I I don't OK. So , um , let 's see. So I don't know if the I mean i if th just there 's more s here that 's not shown that you it 's already like part of the system whatever , but , " where is X " , like , the fact that it is , you know , a speech - act , whatever , it is a question. It 's a question that , um , queries on some particular thing X , and X is that location. There 's , like , a lot of structure in representing that.	Yep. Yeah.	So that seems different from just having the node " location - X " and that goes into EDU , right ?	false	QMSum_96
I I I don't OK. So , um , let 's see. So I don't know if the I mean i if th just there 's more s here that 's not shown that you it 's already like part of the system whatever , but , " where is X " , like , the fact that it is , you know , a speech - act , whatever , it is a question. It 's a question that , um , queries on some particular thing X , and X is that location. There 's , like , a lot of structure in representing that.	Yep. Yeah.	So that seems different from just having the node " location - X " and that goes into EDU , right ?	Yeah. Precisely. That 's that 's	false	QMSum_96
Yep. Yeah.	So that seems different from just having the node " location - X " and that goes into EDU , right ?	Yeah. Precisely. That 's that 's	So tha is that what you 're t talking about ?	false	QMSum_96

And then , um , over in your Bayes - net or whatever , when when the person says " where is it " , you 've already got , you know since they were talking about admission , and that evokes the idea of entering , um , then when they go and ask " where is it " , then you 're Enter node is already active

Mm - hmm.

because that 's what the person is thinking about.

Yeah.

false

QMSum_96

Mm - hmm.

because that 's what the person is thinking about.

Yeah.

I mean that 's the sort of cognitive linguistic - y way ,

false

QMSum_96

because that 's what the person is thinking about.

Yeah.

I mean that 's the sort of cognitive linguistic - y way ,

Yeah , e ultimately that 's also what we wanna get at.

false

QMSum_96

Yeah.

I mean that 's the sort of cognitive linguistic - y way ,

Yeah , e ultimately that 's also what we wanna get at.

and probably not practical.

false

QMSum_96

I mean that 's the sort of cognitive linguistic - y way ,

Yeah , e ultimately that 's also what we wanna get at.

and probably not practical.

I think that 's that 's the correct way. So , of course we have to keep memory of what was the last intention , and how does it fit to this , and what does it tell us , in terms of of the the what we 're examining.

false

QMSum_96

Yeah , e ultimately that 's also what we wanna get at.

and probably not practical.

I think that 's that 's the correct way. So , of course we have to keep memory of what was the last intention , and how does it fit to this , and what does it tell us , in terms of of the the what we 're examining.

Mm - hmm. Mmm , yeah.

false

QMSum_96

and probably not practical.

I think that 's that 's the correct way. So , of course we have to keep memory of what was the last intention , and how does it fit to this , and what does it tell us , in terms of of the the what we 're examining.

Mm - hmm. Mmm , yeah.

And furthermore , I mean we can idealize that , you know , people don't change topics ,

false

QMSum_96

I think that 's that 's the correct way. So , of course we have to keep memory of what was the last intention , and how does it fit to this , and what does it tell us , in terms of of the the what we 're examining.

Mm - hmm. Mmm , yeah.

And furthermore , I mean we can idealize that , you know , people don't change topics ,

Mm - hmm.

false

QMSum_96

Mm - hmm. Mmm , yeah.

And furthermore , I mean we can idealize that , you know , people don't change topics ,

Mm - hmm.

but they do. But , even th for that , there is a student of ours who 's doing a dialogue act um , recognition module.

false

QMSum_96

And furthermore , I mean we can idealize that , you know , people don't change topics ,

Mm - hmm.

but they do. But , even th for that , there is a student of ours who 's doing a dialogue act um , recognition module.

Right. Mm - hmm.

false

QMSum_96

Mm - hmm.

but they do. But , even th for that , there is a student of ours who 's doing a dialogue act um , recognition module.

Right. Mm - hmm.

So , maybe , we 're even in a position where we can take your approach , which is of course much better , as to say how how do these pieces

false

QMSum_96

but they do. But , even th for that , there is a student of ours who 's doing a dialogue act um , recognition module.

Right. Mm - hmm.

So , maybe , we 're even in a position where we can take your approach , which is of course much better , as to say how how do these pieces

Mmm. And much harder to r program.

false

QMSum_96

Right. Mm - hmm.

So , maybe , we 're even in a position where we can take your approach , which is of course much better , as to say how how do these pieces

Mmm. And much harder to r program.

Hmm ?

false

QMSum_96

So , maybe , we 're even in a position where we can take your approach , which is of course much better , as to say how how do these pieces

Mmm. And much harder to r program.

Hmm ?

And much harder to p to program.

false

QMSum_96

Mmm. And much harder to r program.

Hmm ?

And much harder to p to program.

Yeah. How how do these pieces fit together ? Uh - huh. And um. But , OK , nevertheless. So these are issues but we what we actually decided last week , is to , and this is , again , for your benefit is to um , pretend we have observed and parsed an utterance such as " where is the Powder - Tower " , or " where is the zoo " , and specify um , what what we think the the output uh , observe , out i input nodes for our Bayes - nets for the sub sub - D , for the discourse bit , should be. So that And I will I will then come up with the ontology side uh , bits and pieces , so that we can say , OK we we always just look at this utterance. That 's the only utterance we can do , it 's hard coded , like Srini , sort of hand parsed , hand crafted , but this is what we hope to be able to observe in general from utterances , and from ontologies , and then we can sort of fiddle with these things to see what it actually produces , in terms of output.

false

QMSum_96

Hmm ?

And much harder to p to program.

Yeah. How how do these pieces fit together ? Uh - huh. And um. But , OK , nevertheless. So these are issues but we what we actually decided last week , is to , and this is , again , for your benefit is to um , pretend we have observed and parsed an utterance such as " where is the Powder - Tower " , or " where is the zoo " , and specify um , what what we think the the output uh , observe , out i input nodes for our Bayes - nets for the sub sub - D , for the discourse bit , should be. So that And I will I will then come up with the ontology side uh , bits and pieces , so that we can say , OK we we always just look at this utterance. That 's the only utterance we can do , it 's hard coded , like Srini , sort of hand parsed , hand crafted , but this is what we hope to be able to observe in general from utterances , and from ontologies , and then we can sort of fiddle with these things to see what it actually produces , in terms of output.

Uh

false

QMSum_96

And much harder to p to program.

Yeah. How how do these pieces fit together ? Uh - huh. And um. But , OK , nevertheless. So these are issues but we what we actually decided last week , is to , and this is , again , for your benefit is to um , pretend we have observed and parsed an utterance such as " where is the Powder - Tower " , or " where is the zoo " , and specify um , what what we think the the output uh , observe , out i input nodes for our Bayes - nets for the sub sub - D , for the discourse bit , should be. So that And I will I will then come up with the ontology side uh , bits and pieces , so that we can say , OK we we always just look at this utterance. That 's the only utterance we can do , it 's hard coded , like Srini , sort of hand parsed , hand crafted , but this is what we hope to be able to observe in general from utterances , and from ontologies , and then we can sort of fiddle with these things to see what it actually produces , in terms of output.

Uh

So we need to find out what the " where is X " construction will give us in terms of semantics and Simspec type things.

false

QMSum_96

Yeah. How how do these pieces fit together ? Uh - huh. And um. But , OK , nevertheless. So these are issues but we what we actually decided last week , is to , and this is , again , for your benefit is to um , pretend we have observed and parsed an utterance such as " where is the Powder - Tower " , or " where is the zoo " , and specify um , what what we think the the output uh , observe , out i input nodes for our Bayes - nets for the sub sub - D , for the discourse bit , should be. So that And I will I will then come up with the ontology side uh , bits and pieces , so that we can say , OK we we always just look at this utterance. That 's the only utterance we can do , it 's hard coded , like Srini , sort of hand parsed , hand crafted , but this is what we hope to be able to observe in general from utterances , and from ontologies , and then we can sort of fiddle with these things to see what it actually produces , in terms of output.

Uh

So we need to find out what the " where is X " construction will give us in terms of semantics and Simspec type things.

Just OK. Just " where is X " ?

false

QMSum_96

Uh

So we need to find out what the " where is X " construction will give us in terms of semantics and Simspec type things.

Just OK. Just " where is X " ?

Mm - hmm.

false

QMSum_96

So we need to find out what the " where is X " construction will give us in terms of semantics and Simspec type things.

Just OK. Just " where is X " ?

Mm - hmm.

Or any variants of that.

false

QMSum_96

Just OK. Just " where is X " ?

Mm - hmm.

Or any variants of that.

Yeah. No ! Um , look at it this way , i Yeah. What did we decide. We decided sort of the the prototypical " where is X " , where you know , we don't really know , does he wanna go there , or just wanna know where it is.

false

QMSum_96

Mm - hmm.

Or any variants of that.

Yeah. No ! Um , look at it this way , i Yeah. What did we decide. We decided sort of the the prototypical " where is X " , where you know , we don't really know , does he wanna go there , or just wanna know where it is.

Well we were

false

QMSum_96

Or any variants of that.

Yeah. No ! Um , look at it this way , i Yeah. What did we decide. We decided sort of the the prototypical " where is X " , where you know , we don't really know , does he wanna go there , or just wanna know where it is.

Well we were

So the difference of " where is the railway station " , versus where where " where is Greenland ". Nuh ?

false

QMSum_96

Yeah. No ! Um , look at it this way , i Yeah. What did we decide. We decided sort of the the prototypical " where is X " , where you know , we don't really know , does he wanna go there , or just wanna know where it is.

Well we were

So the difference of " where is the railway station " , versus where where " where is Greenland ". Nuh ?

Mm - hmm.

false

QMSum_96

Well we were

So the difference of " where is the railway station " , versus where where " where is Greenland ". Nuh ?

Mm - hmm.

Uh s I was just dancing , sorry.

false

QMSum_96

So the difference of " where is the railway station " , versus where where " where is Greenland ". Nuh ?

Mm - hmm.

Uh s I was just dancing , sorry.

We 're not videotaping any of this. So.

false

QMSum_96

Mm - hmm.

Uh s I was just dancing , sorry.

We 're not videotaping any of this. So.

Uh ah

false

QMSum_96

Uh s I was just dancing , sorry.

We 're not videotaping any of this. So.

Uh ah

So , um , we 're supposed to I mean we 're talking about sort of anything that has the semantics of request for location , right ? actually ? Or , I mean , anyway , the node in the uh the ultimate , uh , in in the Bayes - net thing when you 're done , the the node that we 're talking about um , is one that says " request for location , true " , or something like that , right ? Um , and and exactly how that gets activated , you know , like whether we want the sentence " how do I get there ? " to activate that node or not , you know , that 's that 's sort of the issue that sort of the linguistic - y side has to deal with , right ?

false

QMSum_96

We 're not videotaping any of this. So.

Uh ah

So , um , we 're supposed to I mean we 're talking about sort of anything that has the semantics of request for location , right ? actually ? Or , I mean , anyway , the node in the uh the ultimate , uh , in in the Bayes - net thing when you 're done , the the node that we 're talking about um , is one that says " request for location , true " , or something like that , right ? Um , and and exactly how that gets activated , you know , like whether we want the sentence " how do I get there ? " to activate that node or not , you know , that 's that 's sort of the issue that sort of the linguistic - y side has to deal with , right ?

Yeah , but it Yea - Nnn Well actually more m more the other way around. We wanted something that represents uncertainty uh we in terms of going there or just wanting to know where it is , for example. Some generic information.

false

QMSum_96

Uh ah

So , um , we 're supposed to I mean we 're talking about sort of anything that has the semantics of request for location , right ? actually ? Or , I mean , anyway , the node in the uh the ultimate , uh , in in the Bayes - net thing when you 're done , the the node that we 're talking about um , is one that says " request for location , true " , or something like that , right ? Um , and and exactly how that gets activated , you know , like whether we want the sentence " how do I get there ? " to activate that node or not , you know , that 's that 's sort of the issue that sort of the linguistic - y side has to deal with , right ?

Yeah , but it Yea - Nnn Well actually more m more the other way around. We wanted something that represents uncertainty uh we in terms of going there or just wanting to know where it is , for example. Some generic information.

OK.

false

QMSum_96

So , um , we 're supposed to I mean we 're talking about sort of anything that has the semantics of request for location , right ? actually ? Or , I mean , anyway , the node in the uh the ultimate , uh , in in the Bayes - net thing when you 're done , the the node that we 're talking about um , is one that says " request for location , true " , or something like that , right ? Um , and and exactly how that gets activated , you know , like whether we want the sentence " how do I get there ? " to activate that node or not , you know , that 's that 's sort of the issue that sort of the linguistic - y side has to deal with , right ?

Yeah , but it Yea - Nnn Well actually more m more the other way around. We wanted something that represents uncertainty uh we in terms of going there or just wanting to know where it is , for example. Some generic information.

OK.

And so this is prototypically @ @ found in the " where is something " question , surface structure ,

false

QMSum_96

Yeah , but it Yea - Nnn Well actually more m more the other way around. We wanted something that represents uncertainty uh we in terms of going there or just wanting to know where it is , for example. Some generic information.

OK.

And so this is prototypically @ @ found in the " where is something " question , surface structure ,

OK.

false

QMSum_96

OK.

And so this is prototypically @ @ found in the " where is something " question , surface structure ,

OK.

We

false

QMSum_96

And so this is prototypically @ @ found in the " where is something " question , surface structure ,

OK.

We

which can be p you know , should be maps to something that activates both. I mean the idea is to

false

QMSum_96

OK.

We

which can be p you know , should be maps to something that activates both. I mean the idea is to

I don't

false

QMSum_96

We

which can be p you know , should be maps to something that activates both. I mean the idea is to

I don't

Alright , OK.

false

QMSum_96

which can be p you know , should be maps to something that activates both. I mean the idea is to

I don't

Alright , OK.

Hhh. I guess. I don't

false

QMSum_96

I don't

Alright , OK.

Hhh. I guess. I don't

let 's have it fit nicely with the paper.

false

QMSum_96

Alright , OK.

Hhh. I guess. I don't

let 's have it fit nicely with the paper.

I don't see unde how we would be able to distinguish between the two intentions just from the g utterance , though.

false

QMSum_96

Hhh. I guess. I don't

let 's have it fit nicely with the paper.

I don't see unde how we would be able to distinguish between the two intentions just from the g utterance , though.

The

false

QMSum_96

let 's have it fit nicely with the paper.

I don't see unde how we would be able to distinguish between the two intentions just from the g utterance , though.

The

I mean , uh bef or , before we don't before we cranked it through the Bayes - net. I mean.

false

QMSum_96

I don't see unde how we would be able to distinguish between the two intentions just from the g utterance , though.

The

I mean , uh bef or , before we don't before we cranked it through the Bayes - net. I mean.

Yeah , we we wouldn't. That 's exactly what we want.

false

QMSum_96

The

I mean , uh bef or , before we don't before we cranked it through the Bayes - net. I mean.

Yeah , we we wouldn't. That 's exactly what we want.

We would ?

false

QMSum_96

I mean , uh bef or , before we don't before we cranked it through the Bayes - net. I mean.

Yeah , we we wouldn't. That 's exactly what we want.

We would ?

We want to get No. We wouldn't.

false

QMSum_96

Yeah , we we wouldn't. That 's exactly what we want.

We would ?

We want to get No. We wouldn't.

OK , but then so basically it 's just a for every construction we have a node in the net , right ? And we turn on that node.

false

QMSum_96

We would ?

We want to get No. We wouldn't.

OK , but then so basically it 's just a for every construction we have a node in the net , right ? And we turn on that node.

Yeah. What what is this gonna

false

QMSum_96

We want to get No. We wouldn't.

OK , but then so basically it 's just a for every construction we have a node in the net , right ? And we turn on that node.

Yeah. What what is this gonna

Oy.

false

QMSum_96

OK , but then so basically it 's just a for every construction we have a node in the net , right ? And we turn on that node.

Yeah. What what is this gonna

Oy.

Exactly. What is the uh Well

false

QMSum_96

Yeah. What what is this gonna

Oy.

Exactly. What is the uh Well

And then given that we know that the construction has these two things , we can set up probabilities we can s basically define all the tables for ev for those

false

QMSum_96

Oy.

Exactly. What is the uh Well

And then given that we know that the construction has these two things , we can set up probabilities we can s basically define all the tables for ev for those

Yeah , it should be So we have um , i let 's assume we we call something like a loc - X node and a path - X node. And what we actually get if we just look at the discourse , " where is X " should activate or should

false

QMSum_96

Exactly. What is the uh Well

And then given that we know that the construction has these two things , we can set up probabilities we can s basically define all the tables for ev for those

Yeah , it should be So we have um , i let 's assume we we call something like a loc - X node and a path - X node. And what we actually get if we just look at the discourse , " where is X " should activate or should

Mmm.

false

QMSum_96

And then given that we know that the construction has these two things , we can set up probabilities we can s basically define all the tables for ev for those

Yeah , it should be So we have um , i let 's assume we we call something like a loc - X node and a path - X node. And what we actually get if we just look at the discourse , " where is X " should activate or should

Mmm.

Hmm. Should be both , whereas maybe " where is X located " , we find from the data , is always just asked when the person wants to know where it is , and " how do I get to " is always asked when the person just wants to know how to get there. Right ? So we want to sort of come up with what gets uh , input , and how inter in case of a " where is " question. So what what would the outcome of of your parser look like ? And , what other discourse information from the discourse history could we hope to get , squeeze out of that utterance ? So define the the input into the Bayes - net based on what the utterance , " where is X " , gives us. So definitely have an Entity node here which is activated via the ontology ,

false

QMSum_96

Yeah , it should be So we have um , i let 's assume we we call something like a loc - X node and a path - X node. And what we actually get if we just look at the discourse , " where is X " should activate or should

Mmm.

Hmm. Should be both , whereas maybe " where is X located " , we find from the data , is always just asked when the person wants to know where it is , and " how do I get to " is always asked when the person just wants to know how to get there. Right ? So we want to sort of come up with what gets uh , input , and how inter in case of a " where is " question. So what what would the outcome of of your parser look like ? And , what other discourse information from the discourse history could we hope to get , squeeze out of that utterance ? So define the the input into the Bayes - net based on what the utterance , " where is X " , gives us. So definitely have an Entity node here which is activated via the ontology ,

so " where is X " produces something that is s stands for X , whether it 's castle , bank , restroom , toilet , whatever. And then the ontology will tell us

false

QMSum_96

Mmm.

Hmm. Should be both , whereas maybe " where is X located " , we find from the data , is always just asked when the person wants to know where it is , and " how do I get to " is always asked when the person just wants to know how to get there. Right ? So we want to sort of come up with what gets uh , input , and how inter in case of a " where is " question. So what what would the outcome of of your parser look like ? And , what other discourse information from the discourse history could we hope to get , squeeze out of that utterance ? So define the the input into the Bayes - net based on what the utterance , " where is X " , gives us. So definitely have an Entity node here which is activated via the ontology ,

so " where is X " produces something that is s stands for X , whether it 's castle , bank , restroom , toilet , whatever. And then the ontology will tell us

That it has a location or something like that ? or th the ontology will tell us where actually it is located ?

false

QMSum_96

Hmm. Should be both , whereas maybe " where is X located " , we find from the data , is always just asked when the person wants to know where it is , and " how do I get to " is always asked when the person just wants to know how to get there. Right ? So we want to sort of come up with what gets uh , input , and how inter in case of a " where is " question. So what what would the outcome of of your parser look like ? And , what other discourse information from the discourse history could we hope to get , squeeze out of that utterance ? So define the the input into the Bayes - net based on what the utterance , " where is X " , gives us. So definitely have an Entity node here which is activated via the ontology ,

so " where is X " produces something that is s stands for X , whether it 's castle , bank , restroom , toilet , whatever. And then the ontology will tell us

That it has a location or something like that ? or th the ontology will tell us where actually it is located ?

No. Not at all.

false

QMSum_96

so " where is X " produces something that is s stands for X , whether it 's castle , bank , restroom , toilet , whatever. And then the ontology will tell us

That it has a location or something like that ? or th the ontology will tell us where actually it is located ?

No. Not at all.

OK.

false

QMSum_96

That it has a location or something like that ? or th the ontology will tell us where actually it is located ?

No. Not at all.

OK.

Where it is located , we have , a user proximity node here somewhere ,

false

QMSum_96

No. Not at all.

OK.

Where it is located , we have , a user proximity node here somewhere ,

OK. OK.

false

QMSum_96

OK.

Where it is located , we have , a user proximity node here somewhere ,

OK. OK.

e which tells us how far the user how far away the user is in respect to that uh entity.

false

QMSum_96

Where it is located , we have , a user proximity node here somewhere ,

OK. OK.

e which tells us how far the user how far away the user is in respect to that uh entity.

OK. So you 're talking about , for instance , the construction obviously involves this entity or refers refers to this entity ,

false

QMSum_96

OK. OK.

e which tells us how far the user how far away the user is in respect to that uh entity.

OK. So you 're talking about , for instance , the construction obviously involves this entity or refers refers to this entity ,

Mm - hmm.

false

QMSum_96

e which tells us how far the user how far away the user is in respect to that uh entity.

OK. So you 're talking about , for instance , the construction obviously involves this entity or refers refers to this entity ,

Mm - hmm.

and from the construction also you know that it is a location is or a thing thing that can be located. Right ? Ontology says this thing has a location slot. Sh - and that 's the thing that is being that is the content of the question that 's being queried by one interpretation of " where is X ". And another one is , um , path from current user current location to that location.

false

QMSum_96

OK. So you 're talking about , for instance , the construction obviously involves this entity or refers refers to this entity ,

Mm - hmm.

and from the construction also you know that it is a location is or a thing thing that can be located. Right ? Ontology says this thing has a location slot. Sh - and that 's the thing that is being that is the content of the question that 's being queried by one interpretation of " where is X ". And another one is , um , path from current user current location to that location.

Mm - hmm.

false

QMSum_96

Mm - hmm.

and from the construction also you know that it is a location is or a thing thing that can be located. Right ? Ontology says this thing has a location slot. Sh - and that 's the thing that is being that is the content of the question that 's being queried by one interpretation of " where is X ". And another one is , um , path from current user current location to that location.

Mm - hmm.

So. So is the question I mean it 's just that I 'm not sure what the Is the question , for this particular construction how we specify that that 's the information it provides ? Or or asked for ? b Both sides , right ?

false

QMSum_96

and from the construction also you know that it is a location is or a thing thing that can be located. Right ? Ontology says this thing has a location slot. Sh - and that 's the thing that is being that is the content of the question that 's being queried by one interpretation of " where is X ". And another one is , um , path from current user current location to that location.

Mm - hmm.

So. So is the question I mean it 's just that I 'm not sure what the Is the question , for this particular construction how we specify that that 's the information it provides ? Or or asked for ? b Both sides , right ?

Yeah , you don't need to even do that. It 's just sort of what what would be @ @ observed in uh in that case.

false

QMSum_96

Mm - hmm.

So. So is the question I mean it 's just that I 'm not sure what the Is the question , for this particular construction how we specify that that 's the information it provides ? Or or asked for ? b Both sides , right ?

Yeah , you don't need to even do that. It 's just sort of what what would be @ @ observed in uh in that case.

Observed when you heard the speaker say " where is X " , or when when that 's been parsed ?

false

QMSum_96

So. So is the question I mean it 's just that I 'm not sure what the Is the question , for this particular construction how we specify that that 's the information it provides ? Or or asked for ? b Both sides , right ?

Yeah , you don't need to even do that. It 's just sort of what what would be @ @ observed in uh in that case.

Observed when you heard the speaker say " where is X " , or when when that 's been parsed ?

Mm - hmm.

false

QMSum_96

Yeah , you don't need to even do that. It 's just sort of what what would be @ @ observed in uh in that case.

Observed when you heard the speaker say " where is X " , or when when that 's been parsed ?

Mm - hmm.

So these little circles you have by the D ? Is that ? OK. OK.

false

QMSum_96

Observed when you heard the speaker say " where is X " , or when when that 's been parsed ?

Mm - hmm.

So these little circles you have by the D ? Is that ? OK. OK.

That 's exactly what we 're looking for.

false

QMSum_96

Mm - hmm.

So these little circles you have by the D ? Is that ? OK. OK.

That 's exactly what we 're looking for.

I d I just I don't like having characterizing the constructions with location and path , or li characterizing them like that. Cuz you don't It seems like in the general case you wouldn't know how how to characterize them.

false

QMSum_96

So these little circles you have by the D ? Is that ? OK. OK.

That 's exactly what we 're looking for.

I d I just I don't like having characterizing the constructions with location and path , or li characterizing them like that. Cuz you don't It seems like in the general case you wouldn't know how how to characterize them.

You wouldn't.

false

QMSum_96

That 's exactly what we 're looking for.

I d I just I don't like having characterizing the constructions with location and path , or li characterizing them like that. Cuz you don't It seems like in the general case you wouldn't know how how to characterize them.

You wouldn't.

I mean or , for when. There could be an interpretation that we don't have a node for in the I mean it just seems like @ @ has to have uh a node for the construction and then let the chips fall where they may. Versus uh , saying , this construction either can mean location or path. And , in this cas and since since it can mean either of those things , it would light both of those up.

false

QMSum_96

I d I just I don't like having characterizing the constructions with location and path , or li characterizing them like that. Cuz you don't It seems like in the general case you wouldn't know how how to characterize them.

You wouldn't.

I mean or , for when. There could be an interpretation that we don't have a node for in the I mean it just seems like @ @ has to have uh a node for the construction and then let the chips fall where they may. Versus uh , saying , this construction either can mean location or path. And , in this cas and since since it can mean either of those things , it would light both of those up.

It 's the same.

false

QMSum_96

You wouldn't.

I mean or , for when. There could be an interpretation that we don't have a node for in the I mean it just seems like @ @ has to have uh a node for the construction and then let the chips fall where they may. Versus uh , saying , this construction either can mean location or path. And , in this cas and since since it can mean either of those things , it would light both of those up.

It 's the same.

Thoughts ? Questions ?

false

QMSum_96

I mean or , for when. There could be an interpretation that we don't have a node for in the I mean it just seems like @ @ has to have uh a node for the construction and then let the chips fall where they may. Versus uh , saying , this construction either can mean location or path. And , in this cas and since since it can mean either of those things , it would light both of those up.

It 's the same.

Thoughts ? Questions ?

I 'm thinking about it.

false

QMSum_96

It 's the same.

Thoughts ? Questions ?

I 'm thinking about it.

It will be the same.

false

QMSum_96

Thoughts ? Questions ?

I 'm thinking about it.

It will be the same.

Um

false

QMSum_96

I 'm thinking about it.

It will be the same.

Um

So I think r in here we have " I 'll go there " , right ?

false

QMSum_96

It will be the same.

Um

So I think r in here we have " I 'll go there " , right ?

Answers ?

false

QMSum_96

Um

So I think r in here we have " I 'll go there " , right ?

Answers ?

And we have our Info - on. So in my c my case , this would sort of make this happy , and this would make the Go - there happy. What you 're saying is we have a Where - X question , Where - X node , that makes both happy. Right ? That 's what you 're proposing , which is , in my mind just as fine. So w if we have a construction node , " where is X " , it 's gonna both get the po posterior probability that it 's Info - on up ,

false

QMSum_96

So I think r in here we have " I 'll go there " , right ?

Answers ?

And we have our Info - on. So in my c my case , this would sort of make this happy , and this would make the Go - there happy. What you 're saying is we have a Where - X question , Where - X node , that makes both happy. Right ? That 's what you 're proposing , which is , in my mind just as fine. So w if we have a construction node , " where is X " , it 's gonna both get the po posterior probability that it 's Info - on up ,

Mmm , yeah.

false

QMSum_96

Answers ?

And we have our Info - on. So in my c my case , this would sort of make this happy , and this would make the Go - there happy. What you 're saying is we have a Where - X question , Where - X node , that makes both happy. Right ? That 's what you 're proposing , which is , in my mind just as fine. So w if we have a construction node , " where is X " , it 's gonna both get the po posterior probability that it 's Info - on up ,

Mmm , yeah.

Info - on is True - up , and that Go - there is True - up , as well. Which would be exactly analogous to what I 'm proposing is , this makes uh makes something here true , and this makes something also something here true , and this makes this True - up , and this makes this True - up as well.

false

QMSum_96

And we have our Info - on. So in my c my case , this would sort of make this happy , and this would make the Go - there happy. What you 're saying is we have a Where - X question , Where - X node , that makes both happy. Right ? That 's what you 're proposing , which is , in my mind just as fine. So w if we have a construction node , " where is X " , it 's gonna both get the po posterior probability that it 's Info - on up ,

Mmm , yeah.

Info - on is True - up , and that Go - there is True - up , as well. Which would be exactly analogous to what I 'm proposing is , this makes uh makes something here true , and this makes something also something here true , and this makes this True - up , and this makes this True - up as well.

I kinda like it better without that extra level of indirection too. You know with with this points to this points to that , and so on because I don't know , it

false

QMSum_96

Mmm , yeah.

Info - on is True - up , and that Go - there is True - up , as well. Which would be exactly analogous to what I 'm proposing is , this makes uh makes something here true , and this makes something also something here true , and this makes this True - up , and this makes this True - up as well.

I kinda like it better without that extra level of indirection too. You know with with this points to this points to that , and so on because I don't know , it

Is - uh ,

false

QMSum_96

Info - on is True - up , and that Go - there is True - up , as well. Which would be exactly analogous to what I 'm proposing is , this makes uh makes something here true , and this makes something also something here true , and this makes this True - up , and this makes this True - up as well.

I kinda like it better without that extra level of indirection too. You know with with this points to this points to that , and so on because I don't know , it

Is - uh ,

Yeah , because we get we get tons of constructions I think. Because , you know , mmm people have many ways of asking for the same thing ,

false

QMSum_96

I kinda like it better without that extra level of indirection too. You know with with this points to this points to that , and so on because I don't know , it

Is - uh ,

Yeah , because we get we get tons of constructions I think. Because , you know , mmm people have many ways of asking for the same thing ,

Yeah.

false

QMSum_96

Is - uh ,

Yeah , because we get we get tons of constructions I think. Because , you know , mmm people have many ways of asking for the same thing ,

Yeah.

Yeah , sure.

false

QMSum_96

Yeah , because we get we get tons of constructions I think. Because , you know , mmm people have many ways of asking for the same thing ,

Yeah.

Yeah , sure.

Yeah.

false

QMSum_96

Yeah.

Yeah , sure.

Yeah.

and

false

QMSum_96

Yeah , sure.

Yeah.

and

So un

false

QMSum_96

Yeah.

and

So un

I change I changed my mind actually.

false

QMSum_96

and

So un

I change I changed my mind actually.

So I agree with that.

false

QMSum_96

So un

I change I changed my mind actually.

So I agree with that.

OK.

false

QMSum_96

I change I changed my mind actually.

So I agree with that.

OK.

I have a different kinda question , might be related , which is , OK so implicitly everything in EDU , we 're always inferring the speaker intent , right ? Like , what they want either , the information that they want , or It 's always information that they want probably , of some kind. Right ? Or I I don't know , or what 's something that they

false

QMSum_96

So I agree with that.

OK.

I have a different kinda question , might be related , which is , OK so implicitly everything in EDU , we 're always inferring the speaker intent , right ? Like , what they want either , the information that they want , or It 's always information that they want probably , of some kind. Right ? Or I I don't know , or what 's something that they

The system doesn't massage you , no. No.

false

QMSum_96

OK.

I have a different kinda question , might be related , which is , OK so implicitly everything in EDU , we 're always inferring the speaker intent , right ? Like , what they want either , the information that they want , or It 's always information that they want probably , of some kind. Right ? Or I I don't know , or what 's something that they

The system doesn't massage you , no. No.

I I I don't OK. So , um , let 's see. So I don't know if the I mean i if th just there 's more s here that 's not shown that you it 's already like part of the system whatever , but , " where is X " , like , the fact that it is , you know , a speech - act , whatever , it is a question. It 's a question that , um , queries on some particular thing X , and X is that location. There 's , like , a lot of structure in representing that.

false

QMSum_96

I have a different kinda question , might be related , which is , OK so implicitly everything in EDU , we 're always inferring the speaker intent , right ? Like , what they want either , the information that they want , or It 's always information that they want probably , of some kind. Right ? Or I I don't know , or what 's something that they

The system doesn't massage you , no. No.

I I I don't OK. So , um , let 's see. So I don't know if the I mean i if th just there 's more s here that 's not shown that you it 's already like part of the system whatever , but , " where is X " , like , the fact that it is , you know , a speech - act , whatever , it is a question. It 's a question that , um , queries on some particular thing X , and X is that location. There 's , like , a lot of structure in representing that.

Yep. Yeah.

false

QMSum_96

The system doesn't massage you , no. No.

I I I don't OK. So , um , let 's see. So I don't know if the I mean i if th just there 's more s here that 's not shown that you it 's already like part of the system whatever , but , " where is X " , like , the fact that it is , you know , a speech - act , whatever , it is a question. It 's a question that , um , queries on some particular thing X , and X is that location. There 's , like , a lot of structure in representing that.

Yep. Yeah.

So that seems different from just having the node " location - X " and that goes into EDU , right ?

false

QMSum_96

I I I don't OK. So , um , let 's see. So I don't know if the I mean i if th just there 's more s here that 's not shown that you it 's already like part of the system whatever , but , " where is X " , like , the fact that it is , you know , a speech - act , whatever , it is a question. It 's a question that , um , queries on some particular thing X , and X is that location. There 's , like , a lot of structure in representing that.

Yep. Yeah.

So that seems different from just having the node " location - X " and that goes into EDU , right ?

Yeah. Precisely. That 's that 's

false

QMSum_96

Yep. Yeah.

So that seems different from just having the node " location - X " and that goes into EDU , right ?

Yeah. Precisely. That 's that 's

So tha is that what you 're t talking about ?

false

QMSum_96