Re: please read before our meeting...

On 10/24/24 10:49 AM, Neil Soiffer wrote:
> I mostly agree with Bruce's suggestions. Here's my take:
> 
> 5.1: I think known/unknown concepts should be dropped and text added along the lines of 
> "See 5.2 for more information about how concepts are used".
> 
> 5.2: I think the flow is:
> 1. Define the Core concept list followed by the open concept list.
> 2. Define the Intent Concept Dictionary (should use core, may use open, may have other 
> entries)
> 3. Describe when an intent matches an entry in the dictionary and define known and unknown 
> concepts.
> 4. Describe what AT should do when there is a match and when there isn't a match.
> 
> 5.3: Should continue to be about properties and include what is in 5.4 (what to do if only 
> properties are given)
> 
> I'm not sure about "5.4 (New!) How to apply Concept & Property Hints". That is sort of 
> what is in '5.7 Intent Examples". That section is non-normative (do we need to state 
> that?) and maybe that is different from what Bruce is suggesting.

What I had in mind for the "New" 5.4, was probably what you're including in 5.2.4, above: 
the (mosty) normative "what AT should do".  I'd thought that putting it after 5.3 
Properties would allow us to cover more about how properties may (or may not) modify what 
would have been the speech.

It could go either way; Basically, I'm groping for the optimum between minimizing 
back-references & repetitions (potentially w/modifications) on the one hand, versus a 
backlog of not-yet explained things on the other.

bruce

>      Neil
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 12:04 PM Bruce Miller <bruce.miller@nist.gov 
> <mailto:bruce.miller@nist.gov>> wrote:
> 
>     Hello again;
> 
>         So, my biggest problem with this section is that it tends to be too
>     distributed; as you keep reading, you keep accumulating clarifications,
>     corrections, nuance, so that you don't really know what eg. "known" is,
>     or how to use it, or if it's even consistent, until you get to the end &
>     you've assembled all the pieces.  This may make it nice to read as
>     literature, but hard to use as a specification.
> 
>     My suggestions (with lots of hand-waving):
> 
>     5.1 Grammar for intent: should focus on the grammar and it's
>     terminology, but not get into how it's used.  So under the "concept"
>     item, everything after "A known concept..." should be pushed back to
>     5.2. OR at most replaced by "A concept may be known or not, see 5.2".
> 
>     5.2 Intent Concept Dictionaries: should focus on describing the
>     dictionaries, and how concepts are matched (and thus should define
>     Known/Unknown), but still should defer how the entries are used. So,
>     under item Core, all but the 1st paragraph should be pushed back to (a
>     new) 5.4.
> 
>     5.4 Intent Self References: doesn't seem to warrant it's own section.
>     Can't it be stated in 5.3 that a property can stand alone, w/o a concept?
> 
>     5.4 (New!) How to apply Concept & Property Hints: This should collect in
>     one place how known concepts, unknown concepts, literals,  might be
>     spoken, with whatever level of compulsion, and how properties may or may
>     not modify them.  If we have it in one place, any contradictions may be
>     easier to detect :>
> 
>     Aside: I have a tendency to think of "Concept" and "Property" as
>     corresponding to "What" and "How", but this projection isn't completely
>     consistent with all our use cases, or terminology. Should it be? I
>     dunno, but at least that may explain some of my prejudices :>
> 
>     bruce
> 


-- 
bruce.miller@nist.gov
http://math.nist.gov/~BMiller/

Received on Thursday, 24 October 2024 15:42:56 UTC