Live CEOing Ep 724: Language Design in the Wolfram Language [HistoricalCountries in Geo Databases]

Okay. Hi everyone. We are doing a Wolfram language design review about historical countries. And this has been one of a long series and I hope we're finally coming to the end here. So who wants to start? So geofunctions without a dated wrapper and then. Okay, let's take a look here. So what is this?

So basically now we wanted to summarize the things that are pending for a final decision.

Where's here? So I mean, if. 843. Wait, wait. Here. That's probably in Illinois, right?

Yes, that's the state that existed from that period to that period.

But that's why is historical country not supported. How do I run this?

Sorry, I forgot to tell you to connect to current.

Oh, yeah. Can I run it in a 13.3 main branch build? Can I run it in the main branch build or should I be running it in a prototype build?

I tried yesterday and it worked in 13.3, but you need to use current.

Okay, fine. So can somebody take responsibility for. For getting me to switch back the end of this?

Sure.

How do I do this? You have to write it in that. In that field?

Yes, yes.

The word current. Like that.

Yes.

Okay. Okay. What on earth does this mean?

Those are the states that at some point included probably Champagne. So the Kingdom of France, the pre Napoleonic Kingdom of France, you know, before the Louisiana Purchase and things at one point held that area.

Okay. And we don't have any of the indigenous stuff for the US that's going to get us. But.

But maybe not that.

Yeah, it's very scattered, I think.

Shouldn't we have a default? I mean, we're going to get in trouble with the, with the. I mean, you know, it may not have had borders and things like that, but there should be information on. I mean we could just call it the indigenous, I don't know, America or something. I don't know what.

There have been a lot of attempts to draw different borders and things over time. I don't know what the status them is, but I think it's a hard problem.

Okay.

And there's similar problems, you know, in lots of other places.

Fair enough. This looks really goofy that we say because in this place the Kingdom of France definitely wasn't there in 843 A.D. forget the Vikings, you know, the French should come to.

What else could possibly.

So that's the dates, not when it was here. That's the full dates of this entity.

By the way, we've not generally used ad, have we? As a specific designator. In the past. Right. It just gives A date in alpha.

We do in mathematics, in Wolfram language in general. No, that's right. Also in Alpha we have that style. So that's what. Maybe we are inheriting that because that label is produced in the Alpha site.

Right. So I'm not sure it's the right thing either.

Well, I, I think it's. I mean, at least we should not do negative numbers for bc, please.

No, we absolutely should not. That's completely crazy. Is. Alan is not here today, right?

Not yet.

So that's a question for him about ad, but what are we going to do about the fact that it just looks really silly to have that thing saying, you know.

So in the next section you have probably what you would prefer as an answer.

Right? That's. That was going to be my comment too. So that's part of the question if this is good enough or. Because we were thinking about when. Only when using the dated wrapper is that you get a dated attributed entity. Right? Yeah, that's something that we decided before and before we didn't show these dates in the entities. But that's something you asked some time ago about showing the. So that it will be clearer, for example, for this many kingdoms of France or many kingdoms of. For this country that had the same name. Right?

Yeah. Well, I mean, so you're basically trying to tell me, is this thing that we're seeing here a corner case up here or is it, you know, the. Let's try one where my knowledge of history is so pathetic, but. Okay, let's try that. Where I sort of have some vague idea what it should say. That's weird. That's nice. I mean, that's a good result, basically. What do other people want to say about this? That looks to me like a good result, except that I'm a little bit confused by these multiple.

So these are the different incarnations of gray Britain.

Right.

When it joins Ireland or not.

By the way, let me make a suggestion. Why don't we not use AD after like 1200, just give the date. Nobody's going to be confused. That would save us from, you know, in terms of.

Or maybe if they're both ad it can just say AD would be another example.

I think that's going to get confusing because I think 260 to 274. That's okay. That's all right. That. Yeah, yeah, they write that even. Even for small dates like that. And it's going to be pretty obvious here by the time it's the Gallic Empire. Fine. So the only Case it would use. It is where.

Something is B.C.

Yeah, where something is B.C.

B.C.

Is fine.

Like the first one, for example, the Roman Empire. 27 BC to.

Yeah, actually, I. Yeah, it's. It's okay to use AD there, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. If you said.

I think it's. I think it reads better. I mean, even if.

No, yeah, fine, done. So let's remove it when they're both AD.

Even before the 10th century.

I would argue. Yes.

I would go. I would slightly prefer to leave it when it's. When it's earlier. And by the way, your dashes are the wrong kind of dash. Can we figure that out, please?

Sure.

This is something again. Let's put it on the list for Alan. We're going to use it. I. I have a slight preference to use a the for before. For before a thousand A.D. but I'm not certain. Okay.

Now that I'm looking, I think in Alpha we are using that before the 15th century.

Okay. All right. Okay, fine. Well, maybe we thought about it there. Maybe we should do the same thing here. Okay. I just. It looks stupid for the recent stuff, like 1922 to 2023. Do we really want to say to 2023 or do we want to say to present?

Maybe to present. Just because if it doesn't get updated, it'll. It'll look strange.

Yes, fine. Let's say to present. Does that make sense to people?

Yes.

Yep.

Okay. This is a good result. That's a very nice result. This is a funky result. Maybe we just can treat it as a corner.

The same. Yeah.

I mean, no, it's a corner case. So people will have to. Will scratch their heads and wonder why it is like that. And that's the way it is. What happens if I try. Let me just try one here. That has again, different historical kind of patterns. Oh, lovely. I don't know what that is, but you guys presumably know. But I mean, this looks lovely to me.

These are the print and.

That looks great. Great result. Now, but between 900 and 1400, it's just blank, right?

Yeah. Not major civilization.

Okay, fine. That's fine. But I mean, that's fine, but we think that's a reasonable. By the way, am I saving this somewhere? Do we have a note thing for historical. Historical data. Historical data, yeah. That looks fantastic. Those are great results. Okay, all right, so what else do we have to figure out? So I think you started on one. That's a particularly ugly corner case. Oh, yeah. So we wanted to live stream Suggesting that the AD and BC will be written in smaller font than the date. That is a good suggestion. I don't see any reason not to do that. Make sense to people.

Yeah. Not sure who should we talk about that Maybe Tony about this styling of the.

It's a good suggestion.

There is probably also the question of whether it should be AD or ce.

That's what I want Alan to opine on. We're not going to use Cell the. Almost certainly.

Okay.

We are not using that yet in alpha. Of course.

I mean it's a. We made a decision.

Yes, yes.

To not do that.

So it's accepted as a simple.

Of course.

But.

Yeah, yeah, right, right. Okay. So now what are these things? So this is. What is this? What does that mean?

When using. You identify with an entity that have a date like a military conflict. It only it will search the historical country that intersects both in time and space. That was what we concluded. What you concluded in the last meeting.

Okay, so that essentially instead of resolving to just a geoposition, it effectively resolves to a dated geoposition. Is that basically right?

Yes, that's correct. Right. So if I were to say here, if I were to say this, your position dated of London, You know, 1600, for example, what the heck needs to.

Be a date object? I think.

Well, that's wrong.

No, the dated. The second argument, dated does not need.

To be a date object. It can be an integer. This is a bug.

Okay.

Maybe try making a date object just to see what the bug is.

Okay, it's just a bug, but that's a good result. Right. Everybody agree?

Yeah.

Yes.

Is there actually, given that we're going to have this is the way it resolves certain entities. Is there a property for things like the Battle of Zama that would be like the dated position or something.

That's a good suggestion.

Currently, no.

So let's do it. Let's call it. What should we call it? We could call it.

I mean.

Well, one.

One fear would be that, I mean, every property of it could be dated. Right.

But say dated position. And then because this here we say position. There it'll say that. And now what we hopefully will get is if we say. And we say date. Oh, for God's sake. What is the. What is the right term? What is the right thing?

Start date or end date or something.

Okay, so now if I say geo identify. Dated of. I'm just checking that this works. I assume it will work.

Your quote, sir.

I didn't know the Battle of Waterloo was on Sunday. Who knew? Great. That worked.

So. So this dated position will return a dated wrapper with the J position and the. Or a date interval in case it's more than one date.

Right, Exactly. So we'll return this object. Okay.

Yeah.

Potentially could be a date interval. Right. Because end date.

Absolutely. Can be a date interval. Absolutely. And I assume that your identify works with date intervals, right?

Yes, we are supporting that.

Yes.

Okay, so I mean, if I say something like, well here, I won't even try it. I assume it'll work. Okay. All right, now let's just talk about this case here.

So this case and the previous one is in case you only input the GEO position. So you identify the Battle of Sama position, you get this result. But also we have this geo variant of Union that it's equivalent to get any. Any polygon of the historical countries that intersects with the position of Battle of Sam.

That's a very obscure name.

Which.

Is this what we figured out last time to do this?

Yes, we changed that to Union the name. But of course we can.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. So. And we decided to use geovariant for this as opposed to using for this. The other thing I could imagine doing here would be to say historical country here and then to say something like dated of this comma. All. See what I'm saying? In other words, to have dated be like one of our wrappers that inserts its own content from the outside.

That's. That makes sense. Totally.

So.

So you are thinking that all will override the fact that Battle of Sama is not specific.

Exactly.

But we are using all in a different way for data first argument. Yes. If you look at this next section, this all means to search in all the time of the entities. So. So maybe that could be confusing.

I'm supporting this more than I'm supporting this. This is really obscure to me. Christopher, do you have a comment on this one?

No, I. I don't really, really know.

I mean, do you understand what it does?

Yeah, I think so. It's basically saying find all the historical countries. But where. Right. Each historical country is, you know, the full time prism thing. Right. Extended infinitely in time. Is that right?

Yeah, that's what. Right. But I don't know why it's called Union.

We talked about a lot last time, I think.

Right. Because maybe it's clear that the previous one to this Union, that is basically take the position of Battle of Sama and search for any historical country that is.

I know, I know that's what it's doing. But why Is it called union?

Well, I think it's supposed to be the union of all of the. That's right. There were many different polygons for for example, the Roman Republic over time. And so you want to find. Right, you want the polygon that represents the union of all of the Roman Republic polygons, which is different than for example, the largest extent polygon or something like that.

Right, but this, you're doing two things here. You're doing that the union polygon and then you're unioning over time.

No, but you're not. Because the point is that basically the union polygon is a non temporal polygon.

It's. Right.

And so it's assumed to be extending infinitely in time.

Okay, I think it's a terrible name for this.

Well, no, no, wait, here, here's the content. This is where we came up with this name. Is what if you say. Essentially, right, if you want to say geo. Geovariant of Roman Republic, you know, comma, union, you know, get me the polygon that's supposed to give you the union polygon. Right. As opposed if you say largest extent or something like that. This is just a logical consequence of, of that working. Understand we have different geography.

I understand, I understand what that's doing. It's saying it's a time independent polygon.

No, Right, but I'm just saying think about it in the other context. In the context of, of you just want to get the maximum extent polygon or the union polygon or the, you know, polygon at this particular date, then union is a fine word to refer to the union of all the places it's ever.

Right. I just think it's very, very, very confusing. In that geo identify case. Why did it say that? Why did it say this? Why did it say that?

Well, in general you have to say polygon of Roman Republic, don't you?

But maybe I need to say geolistplot. No, it just didn't work. Okay, so that should work. Do we agree?

Yes, it should work. Yes.

Okay, all right, so that's a bug. But let's look back at that geovariant thing here. Retrieving this. You see, I would argue that the return value here should be a list of geovariance. Do you see what I'm saying? Right, so the, the to be consistent.

Yes, yes, yes. That's something that we talked some time ago and we never agree on that fully because we had this. Of the full map area and principal area, etc.

No, I know, but the return value here I Think would be much less confusing. There it is just a few of them. Just to show what we're talking about, see what it would look like. I mean we could. We could print it differently. I really think it should say that should look like that because that's the consistent thing to do. Because then if you say make a plot of this, you're going to get the right result as opposed to getting completely bonkers result.

I agree. And we will do that also for the other geovariance.

Right.

For the regular geovariance for country, etc.

Yes. So now I mean we could consider a different format here where it's a subscript union or something like that. We should consider that. Am I making sense.

Just in truth, the formatting of your variant?

Yeah, just for the four. I think now the question is. So this makes more sense to me. We're saying show me identify a geovariant historical. A union geovarian historical country relevant to this. That makes more sense. Christopher, any comments on this?

Not really.

Okay, the. Does it seem silly to you?

So you mean to the. The way you have it. I'm sorry, I'm confused. Do you mean the way you have it threaded over the.

I want to make sure. What's that for the output. Okay, I'm going to assume this makes sense. Let's move on. Okay.

Because we are already doing that for. For dated. For example, we are returning dated as a wrapper.

Right?

As a wrapper.

Just a different wrapper. Right. Okay. So you know, this calendar thing looks really pretty stupid here. I have to say with years I have to believe that we'd be better. You know, that date interval could display more sensibly here. But any case. Okay, so let's understand what this is. What does this mean? Oh, that's dated.

Royal history. Yes.

Right.

So all. Wait, let me see if I remember this right. Oh, I know that's not the geovaring. Well, okay, does that represent the countries as their kind of the, you know, the space time blob, if you know what I mean.

This is the space time blob.

And selecting one of these slides.

Now what happens if one of these countries intersected here for a certain time but not for other times? Then that will be reflected in the state interval. Is that correct?

Yes.

So for example, if we. I don't even know what. Well, in the US for example, let's try this. Right?

So this is essentially representing the intersection between the various space time blobs and an infinite line representing here but then goes.

Yes, I think so yes, yes. So if I say. This and then I say. Denver.

Actually a good one. You should try it. But you should try London because it'll be nice because it'll leave the Roman Empire, but then it'll come back.

Okay, That's pretty nice. That's pretty nice. Is it right? I think it's probably right. Let's try London. By the way, we should be paying attention to these examples because we're making up some reasonable examples here.

One thing that's a little strange is because I don't know how to. How to avoid it is the date interval for the US for that last one is higher granularity because it's trying to get to today for the present end. Yes.

Date interval doesn't support different granularity between the start and end.

Right. I don't know what the solution would be. It just seems slightly strange.

It doesn't support a symbol like today as ending.

Well, maybe we need that. I mean, that's a Jose thing. Maybe. Maybe we need a present.

Yeah.

It can be forever type thing.

Yeah.

A present keyword or something like that.

Okay, so wait a minute. This goes.

Oh, wait, they do.

I don't understand this. This is wrong, actually.

I think it's missing. I think it's actually missing the second branch of the Roman Empire.

Yeah, but there's something else that's more seriously wrong. This here says beginning 52 BC and it's not saying BC and it should. Here, that's a. That's another date interval bug.

No, that's.

Oh, that's A.D. sorry, that's A.D. you're.

Supposed to be British.

I understand. So this is London. Was this part of the Roman Empire until 52 AD? That seems very implausible.

I think that's about right.

I think it's right. I think with Claudio.

I didn't know that. That the Romans only. Only dealt.

Julius Caesar was. Was hanging around there in like the, you know, 40s B.C. but then he left.

But. But the.

There is a bug here though, which is. I think that this is the first. This data interval there for the Roman Empire is the first state. It was part of the Roman Empire and the last state. But it's missing the fact that when the Gallic Empire was broke off, it was.

Yes, you're correct.

Yes. And date interval supports multi interval. So that can be expressed.

Okay, so then it would say Roman Empire and then a disjoint date interval here and then the Gallic Empire here.

Yes, that will be the right answer.

Okay. I really do think There's a formatting here that could be improved with the date interval for. And maybe we need a different format for date intervals. I mean, this beginning and through just seems very ponderous.

It might have been nice to show like, you know, at least in some cases the dash, like we do with the entities above. But it is actually nice like in several of these. The way that you can kind of compare the dates above and below, especially if they line up.

Yeah, I think we just need to look at the. I mean, I. I just think this little calendar thing is kind of like. Especially as it's offset from the plus sign and things. It's kind of like it's cut. But do we really need it?

Probably not. It was inherited from Data Object, which had it in the past and we removed it from Data Object.

But then we should remove it here.

And through. Is there. Because there was the discussion of whether the last date was included or not. And according to Nick, through indicates that it is included.

Oh yeah, no, that's right. But I mean, I'm not sure that, that for these things. If we just have a dash. But this kind of stuff, it's. It's sensible. I don't understand a lot of this. I don't understand this that. Well, the lack of the disjoint things. What is that, by the way? My total lack of British history knowledge. What is that? Is that like Wales took over England or something? Well, nobody knows. Christopher, you don't know what that thing is?

Some Anglo Saxon group?

Oh no, it's 1200 Irish. Irish. Well, who knows? Hopefully it's correct. Okay, so again, this is. I don't understand this notation here. This is a way of forcing this thing to have date intervals and that's sort of consistent with what we're doing here. Forcing it to show its GEO variant.

Yes. So for data, because that's a new thing. We talked that a bit last time that in the first argument that would mean that we'll show that in the output.

Okay, so let's just check some consistency here. If I do this and I say dated Denver, I'm going to put a Data object here, even though I shouldn't need to. Horrible granularity, but correct result. That granularity is absolutely horrible. Right, we agree.

Yes, yes.

That should inherit the same granularity as the input.

Yeah.

Okay, but the result is sensible here. Yes, yes. Okay, let's keep going here. Yeah, okay, that's the. You have this case there. What happens if I say. No? No.

For now, the only domains with historical Information are historical country and military conflict.

But we do know for buildings we know when they were built.

Not for many. That's why we haven't added them yet to the historical.

Okay, but Alan certainly knows. Did Alan join us yet? Which. Go ahead.

Well, I was going to ask do we have a decision? Because I remember last time there was some questions about whether we care about the start date or the end date.

Well. What?

Well, for things like buildings would be a hard one. For military conflicts, I guess it's you do it the start and end date of the military conflict.

But for.

For the buildings I think we had a begin construction and end construction date.

I don't think we should do. I think we should do when the building exists because we have a destruction date for buildings as well.

So by the way, notice in a few cases. But destruction.

What's that?

The same. So in that case it would be construction finished to destruction date.

I think it should be construction started to destruction date.

Okay.

This is perhaps related to the duration project.

Yes.

Synchronizing the fact that duration on entities gives.

Yes, but I think there are plenty of other entities. Where. I mean, what other entities There We've. We've inventoried this before. For example, for the duration project. What things have that? What happens if I do this? I'm just going to watch through them. A bug? Why is that saying column? The hell is that? What is that?

I think Landin site is trying to produce a map.

That's crazy. It shouldn't be doing that. It shouldn't be doing that. It's just wrong. That's a bug. So another bug. Okay, but that splatteroo. What should we do in this case? I mean this is debug what it's doing right now. But. Am I making sense? I mean that's a valid geoposition, right?

Right. But any anyway geo identify doesn't support moon as datum.

I know, I realize that. I'm asking disgorging some internal error message seems.

Yeah, we should remove that. Yes. Yeah, sure. The bug is that we should only say you're in the failures and support them.

Yeah, well. Okay. Christopher. Anybody else? What should it do? What is the historical country that is the move?

I think it should just return an empty list. There's no historical country that contains that position.

Fine, let's do it that way. No reason to give an error message. Now let me try the next obvious thing. Multiple things to try here.

Isn't that a naval battle?

It is.

I don't know how close to the coast it Was good.

That was. That's a good answer, right?

For the moon. I'm not sure yet if it's fine to say that it's empty list.

I think it should be empty. It is not a country.

Some other geo functions will emit messages sometime of the form incompatible GEO models or bodies.

But there's nothing particularly incompatible about it. Right? I mean it's just. You just want to say like. I mean, right, you could imagine that there could be a country on moon and.

Yeah, right, exactly. Just hasn't been set up that way yet. By the way, why did. When I said South Pole, why did it come back with Antarctica? Did you see that? I said South Pole. That's just wrong. South Pole is a continent. That's just crazy. Well anyway, that's a separate bug, right Jose, Et cetera.

Yes, that's about linguistics.

Right, but. And what about exclusive economic zones and so on? Do we have that data now?

We are working on them actually Today they started adding that to current, but it's not yet deployed.

Okay, but. So we're ignoring Zs for purposes of historical countries. Is that true?

Yeah, for historical countries. We don't have them definitely.

Yeah, well I understand. We don't have them for historical. Okay fine. But even if we did, we don't consider that the country anyway.

No, not really.

Well, actually if we do a geo identify for a country, are we going to have a geo variant? Okay. What is the correct thing to do? You have something five miles off the coast of wherever the U.S. let's say.

We have discussed other times having maritime borders. Some sort of another geo variant.

Yeah, that seems like the right thing to do.

And that that could be. Also we are still discussing if that should be the default for. For you identify. So at least.

Yeah, that's not obvious to me. I think probably not. I think it's confusing. I don't know if Christopher has an opinion about this. If it's in the ocean, it's not part of the country. Unless you ask for a geo variant that includes maritime borders.

Yeah, I think that makes sense.

In my opinion we should use the maritime borders because it has been reported that people ask for a point in the Hudson Bay and we say it's not in the US and also because the maritime borders are going to be much simpler polygons so doing computations with them will be faster.

Well, but then. Well, I guess the only thing about that. I mean that's.

That's fair.

But that one concern might be that the. It might be a little strange if we use one polygon to be the default that you grant that Geographics uses and a different one for like Geo Identify, nothing else. I can imagine people being confused because they, they make a graphic of the polygon and they say, hey, that point clearly isn't in this polygon. Why is Geo Identify disagreeing?

I think it's a separate thing. Let's wait until we've got the economic zone data. Then we have to figure this out. So what can we do? Is there some graphic that we can make? So if I took these and I said if I took. Okay, so if I take this, I want to see what it does. I take this and I say after it produced that, I say geographics or geo list plot. What am I going to get? Am I going to get a bunch of overlapping things with Tunisia and things like that?

Some of these are recent extensions. So I'm not sure the full GEO framework is prepared to support it.

Why is it taking forever here?

Well, it's grabbing the polygons for the specific interval date intervals.

Okay. It doesn't show a progress indicator or anything. By the way, why is the dynasty in lowercase D and the caliphate a capital C? Anybody? Is that just a mistake?

Yes, that's.

That was a discussion we had with.

Alan and now look, it's not consistent. That's dynasty is with a capital D. That one is with a lowercase D. So something is wrong. Does that make sense? Looks. Looks just like a mistake. Okay, why is this just literally not coming back and not showing any progress monitor? Well, let's keep going. That's the rest of the discussion. See what we are.

I do think it would be good. This is a bit off topic, but I think it would be good if Geolis plot had some sort of performance goal or something. Maybe it already does. I just don't know about it.

That would be nice.

It doesn't often much slower than like if you're doing a bunch of points. It's often, I think slower than, you know, geographics of point for.

What is it doing here? What the heck is it doing here?

I think it's doing an entity value called per object and probably which is wrong. Yeah, it is wrong. I would avoid it.

I want to just do. Then let me just do glist plot, take percent 27 comma 4 or something. Come on. It must have downloaded those by now.

But I'm not sure it's downloading anything.

What's it doing?

These dated with date intervals etc are very recent objects. So I don't think the GEO framework is prepared to.

Okay, fine. So this is a bug, so it needs to be fixed. Okay, I'm just trying to understand what. What I mean, this is a very cool result, but how do we visualize it? Okay, so I just had no idea what to do. So what about if I say timeline plot of this? Presumably if I say timeline plot plot.

Bunch of GEO things a of of that. Yeah, okay, sure.

Then it will work. Okay, and how about if I say.

Timeline plot of percent 27?

What's that?

Does it work to say timeline plot of percent 27? I'm not sure exactly what that would do, but maybe would, you know.

No, the answer is no. It could. It could label them.

Yeah.

I mean, that's sort of interesting. Not completely convincing, but. But don't we have a way of.

Like if you give time and pot and associ or something, it will.

Yes.

Nice labels. Presumably dated, kind of has similar semantics to an association like that.

Okay, this should work in my view. Does that make sense?

Why, why how that will work?

Well, we'll just assume that the data interval is uniform.

No, but is for I entity or volume or something. So. So it's missing the.

No, no, this data list of date intervals. Geo histogram. Oh, I didn't mean that. I mean date histogram. I'm totally wrong. Oh, oh, that's really cool. That works.

Does that actually take into like it actually knows about the fact that there's continuity in the intervals or something? It's not just turning them into their start date something?

I don't know.

I don't know. That would be a question for Brett.

Wait, the fact that.

Very suspicious. Look, these. This labeling is stupid. And the fact that it goes to 2058 is unconvincing.

Could you actually do for the. For the. The granularity if you set it to like 10 years or something? For date histogram. I'm not sure you need to put in a list like that, but.

Okay, this is going to give a very lot. But. But also please. The axis is completely crazy here from.

For me over zoom. Your window just went black.

Yes, for same.

Oh no. What? Something is frozen here.

Oh no.

I hope that's not the new crazy annotation of. Okay, this needs to be reported right away to Brett. It's very dead. It's very, very, very dead. Am I still. Can you still hear me?

Well, there's several. Several? What you mean here? But several windows on your computer just turned black.

How can you see more than one window? I only had One on the screen.

Or like the window and then also there's something at the top that went black and.

Yeah.

My God.

I think that's the zoom controls.

Ah, yes.

This is really dead. I. I can't move around in this window. I can't get to the. I mean, my computer has basically crashed here.

Can you not command option escape.

Oh, no. Now it came back. Just came back. Oops. Now when I unshared, it came back. I know, I know, I know. I'm trying to abort. Oh, no. Oh, gosh. Okay, this needs to be reported immediately because this, I think is exactly what I was afraid of with the new stuff with 13.3. The new annotation stuff for 13.3 is making this go crazy. Am I making sense? Who can report that?

I can take over that it needs.

To be done within the next hour, right? Yeah. Okay. Could Brett get make sure they have this notebook, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Sure. It shouldn't need that amount. Well, whatever dated, we should just be able to give a list. 1700, 1800 within dated, right? To specify an interval. That makes sense.

Not sure, because that could be confusing with the date list.

But doesn't dated have. I'm saying dated, right? Dated of thing comma, 1700, 1800. Why is that a date list? That's not a date. Take a date list. Data doesn't take date lists. Okay, maybe this is already supported and dated. I don't remember. I don't think it is, but I think it should be.

The thing is, with that format, if you put for instance like year, I don't know, three and year five, it would be confusing if it's referring to.

No, it will not read what date set what date? It says it does not support that.

Oh, okay.

It doesn't support that. That's why I suggested does for date object, but it doesn't for dated, so this should be able to work. Okay. Geo functions using data date. What? I see that. That's fine.

That's what we are having already doing before.

Yes, Right. But that's not what should be necessary. That's nice. Right? That's using a low granularity data object, right?

Correct.

Okay, so there's some formatting stuff with data interval. There's some details here, there's some bugs, but otherwise this is looking great. And I am thinking, you know, in terms of when you get an output like this, what can you really do with it? Did. Did you understand what I'm asking? You know, are there visualizations for the computations. What should you be doing with it? Like, for example, do we have a notion of capital cities for an empire and so on? Do we have that information?

I. I don't think so.

So.

So you mean the capital cities of historical country?

Yeah.

The history of capital cities.

Right. Yeah. Might be an interesting thing.

Well defined.

What's that?

I don't think that's always well defined.

Not always well defined, but I don't know what else we might. I mean, I just. I'm just wondering. What do you do with this list? It's a very nice list, but what do you do with it? Okay, let's wrap this meeting up then. But. So in terms of what we want to see going forward, we will need to see this one more time, but probably in some. As part of some other meeting because there's not much more. There's some formatting stuff and bug fixing and so on, but this is looking great. Anything else we want to discuss here, Jose? Anything else?

No, no. I was thinking of how to support all this. Entities with dated and your variant of union in geographics. But we can do something and then.

Okay, fine. And then let's figure out the inventory of things with. With dates and positions. Great. Did Alan show up or not?

No, he didn't.

Okay. All right. See you guys. Very nice stuff. It's great to see this finally work. Okay, bye.