OK. That was the idea. Um , people , when they w when they want to go to a building , sometimes they just want to look at it. Sometimes they want to enter it. And sometimes they want to get really close to it. That 's something we found. It 's just a truism. And the places where you will lead them for these intentions are sometimes ex in incredibly different. I  I gave an example where the point where you end up if you want to look at it is completely different from where  if you want to enter it. So , this is sort of how people may , uh  may phrase those requests to a  a  a mock - up system at least that 's the way they did it. And we get tons of  of these " how do I get to " , " I want to go to " , but also , " give me directions to " , and " I would like to see ". And um , what we can sort of do , if we look closer a closer at the  the data  That was the wrong one. um , we can look at some factors that may make a difference. First of all , very important , and um , that  I 've completely forgot that when we talked. This is of course a crucial factor , " what type of object is it ? " So , some buildings you just don't want to take pictures of. Or very rarely. But you usually want to enter them. Some objects are more picturesque , and you  more f more highly photographed. Then of course the  the actual phrases may give us some idea of what the person wants. Um. Sometimes I found in the  Uh , looking at the data , in a superficial way , I found some s sort of modifiers that  that m may also give us a hint , um , " I 'm trying to get to " Nuh ? " I need to get to ". Sort of hints to the fact that you 're not really sightseeing and  and just f there for pleasure and so forth and so on. And this leads us straight to the context which also should be considered. That whatever it is you 're doing at the moment may also inter influence the interpretation of  of a phrase. So , this is , uh , really uh , uh , uh  My suggestion is really simple. We start with , um  Now , Let me , uh , say one more thing. What we do know , is that the parser we use in the SmartKom system will never differentiate between any of these. So , basically all of these things will result in the same XML M - three - L structure. Sort of action " go " , and then an object.
Mm - hmm.
Yeah ? and a source. So it 's  it 's  it 's way too crude to d capture those differences in intentions. So , I thought , " Mmm ! Maybe for a deep understanding task , that 's a nice sort of playground or first little thing. " Where we can start it and n sort of look  " OK , we need , we gonna get those M - three - L structures. The crude , undifferentiated parse. Interpreted input. We may need additional part of speech , or maybe just some information on the verb , and modifiers , auxiliaries. We 'll see. And I will try to  to sort of come up with a list of factors that we need to get out of there , and maybe we want to get a g switch for the context. So this is not something which we can actually monitor ,  now , but just is something we can set. And then you can all imagine sort of a  a constrained satisfaction program , depending on  on what , um , comes out. We want to have an  a structure resulting if we feed it through a belief - net or  or something along those lines. We 'd get an inferred intention , we  we produce a structure that differentiates between the Vista , the Enter , and the , um , Tango mode. Which I think we maybe want to ignore. But. That 's my idea. It 's up for discussion. We can change all of it , any bit of it. Throw it all away.
Now @ @ this email that you sent , actually.