Re: please read before our meeting...

I can see that "known"/"unknown" are too colloquial in English, so may not
be as clear, sure.

"supported/unsupported" is a healthy alternative, I think that word pair is
appropriate for a system context.

I'll try using those as an experiment.

Deyan

On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 9:08 AM Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net> wrote:

> My concern is that known/unknown is a state of a brain and not of a
> software.
> In particular, a software designer will likely be aware of (will know of)
> some intent concepts dictionary but will avoid it on purpose.
>
> For me “considered/not-considered” or “in-scope/out-of-scope” would
> represent in a more faithful fashion what one can expect of a software than
> known/unknown. Yes, the duality is needed. And probably we can find even
> better words.
>
> Maybe “supported/not-supported” or “implemented/not-implemented” or
> “considered/ignored” ?
>
> Paul
>
> On 28 Oct 2024, at 12:31, Deyan Ginev wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Why do you suggest "known" / "uknown" are weak names? To me they are very
> close to the healthy balance the spec needs:
>
> 1. They are needed, as we recommend behaviors for each of the two cases
>
> 2. They avoid specificity of data structures, implementation, even AT
> paradigm, which allows ample room for experimentation.
>
> 3. They also help indicate that the spec is focused on the Intent syntax,
> and not on the technical details of AT systems, which makes the text easier
> to read confusion-free.
>
> I quite like them personally.
>
> Greetings,
> Deyan
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024, 4:29 PM Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net> wrote:
>
>> While ‘known/unknown’ appear weak as names, I really really liked the
>> idea that an AT considers an extra “intent concept/property dictionary” as
>> a declarative way to indicate what extra language or specific culture they
>> consider. This is a first and very basic step towards
>> context-specific-pronunciation. Maybe ‘considered/not-considered’, or
>> ‘in-scope/out-of-scope’ ?
>>
>> Btw, the text I read used “AT” without a determinant (“An AT”/“The AT”).
>> That sounded very odd as language for me (I hear this from particular
>> immigrants here ;-)). That was just a speedy writing effect, right?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> On 24 Oct 2024, at 16:49, 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.
>>
>>     Neil
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 12:04 PM Bruce Miller <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
>>>
>>