Mm - hmm.
uh , we aren't gonna build our own interpreter , so if  if we can't find one , then we uh , go off and do something else and wait until s one appears. Uh , so one of the things that Eva 's gonna do over the next few weeks is see if we can track that down. Uh , the people at Stanford write papers as if they had one , but , um , we 'll see. So w Anyway. So that 's a  a major open issue. If there is an interpreter , it looks like you know , what Eva 's got should run and we should be able to actually um , try to solve , you know , the problems , to actually take the data , and do it. Uh , and we 'll see. Uh , I actually think it is cleaner , and the ability to instantiate , you know , instance of people and sites and stuff , um , will help in the expression. Whether the inference gets any faster or not I don't know. Uh , it wouldn't surprise me if it  if it doesn't.
Mm - hmm.
You know , it 's the same kind of information. I think there are things that you can express this way which you can't express in a normal belief - net , uh , without going to some incredible hacking of  sort of rebuilding it on the fly. I mean , the notion of instantiating your el elements from the ontology and stuff fits this very nicely and doesn't fit very well into the extended belief - net. So that was one of the main reasons for doing it. Um. I don't know. So , uh , people who have thought about the problem , like Robert i it looked to me like if  Eva were able to come up with a  you know , value for each of a number of uh , sites plus its EVA thing , that a travel planner should be able to take it from there. And  you know , with some other information about how much time the person has and whatever , and then plan a route.