The first one, we had a research made by architects where we had different kinds of visions. From the urban planning to the drawing and how the process of drawing connects with projects.

Then we had, I don't know if I can say this, but in some way an influence from art that relates with architecture and creates a method and a process to think and to elaborate ideas of space.

I think the first panel creates already some points of debate and in this second section I think we have an approach that they increase and I think we are now ready to start to invoke the audience to participate in these debates.

So we had the first session and it was really interesting but difficult for me. I'm Christina and I couldn't be more mean to see is to know that the semantics and the ontology

related with these possibilities and it's not only related with communication but also and making the archives and making possible. You try to understand the final interface that we have in our computers and it's very interesting

for us this year in our school because we have some projects related with web-based archives.

We want to do this with collaboration also with other classes for example like design and communication course because we are an art school so we have different fields. And it's interesting because we are in that period of finding that we have the students work and

we want to start to make an archive of the taxonomy, the semantic way how we do it.

It's really interesting because here in Porto, the University of Porto has already a platform, we have a platform and there is open source and free web platform that is where it's possible to do it.

But what's best and how can we do it? I think the thinking process is the most important thing so I think we could talk a little bit more about the best possibilities to work with web-based archives that more and more are important.

And I feel that not only in teaching but also in some professional projects that even in Porto equipments there is a need not only to make web pages to communicate but also web pages in a dynamic way to increase knowledge during time.

And so I think it's interesting the way that you presented the first presentation. And the second one, it was interesting, once again I think the organization

mixed well with this section because it was an approach to urban planning. I think it's a proposal anyway. It's one plan that is working. It was interesting to me because you related some of the problems that already exist.

Like the CISH, Informatic Geometric System, GPS, and REX, Remote Sensation. And I'd like to know a little bit more about this because for example UNESO has for many years defended

cultural mapping as one of the needs for communities to work and people of communities to make these cultural mappings. And I'd like to know what these remotes, if you could explain a little bit more, because it relates maps to cartographies in a digital way and so on.

In the third space I think it's more related. It makes the connection between the theory and the structure that was behind the construction of these platforms.

Then the proposal and the planning and then an approach and a study of space. Then it makes a relationship between space, inside space, and then a relationship with the outside space and a relationship with the building housing.

And in this case I'm a little bit more, I have a little bit more doubts. When Franklin at the beginning said, here the scope is not conceptually, we don't have the same ideas and that is good.

Because in this conference we saw that there is different approaches and different ways to see this. And I already talked with some colleagues, I already made an experience with space index and the results were not expected.

And I think that we can talk a little bit about that because, and I wanted to talk about his experience because we cannot only depend on software and programs yet. And that's why I thought it was interesting, the remote sensing, how can we manage to cross the different kind of approaches,

mainly related with social sciences, perceptions, and intuitive and phenomenology.

I think it's possible to create ways to connect these different approaches. So this is my resume for this session and if you want to answer and then I'd like to be open to practice this debate also.

I'll wait for everyone to repeat the question. I can explain what remote sensing is and how it interacts with the ease.

I wanted to make remote sensing a plan. Remote sensing is, with GPS we have a geographic location in almost instant time. It's approximately 100 meters of error.

Remote sensing is, it can be used by satellite or plane where we can protect the altimetry, for example, at night we can see all the lights in the city, all the lights in the city when they are on, when they are off,

whatever is happening in the thousands of people. It's like the name says, it's sensing what's happening. One good example is, for example, in the streets when we have the lights that have the device,

when people approach the light turns on, it's kind of automating the process of gathering information. And that information is gathered by the remote sensor and the GPS is exposed in the direct information system.

But there is an individual participation or how can, how is it? I think it's more inclusive of the lights because it's very expensive.

And the case studies that you presented already used that kind of devices? The first ones, the first ones did. The ones with, for example, terrain elevation and the lightning systems, even housing elevations.

The more physical, I think the non-physical that doesn't use that much in satellite or plane, but more in proximity, the way we interact with space, it's not really about gathering information in close contact, but providing the service.

So I'd like to ask you a question. I hope you don't find it provocative. I'd like to know the practice of in-your-hand studies of this and where can you approach this,

which is the importance of this. I just wanted to say that. What I'm looking into from medicine is that the complexity of medicine that already exists is so great that it allows for great flexibility.

And that's why I was able to use a theory that was already established by trying something new.

And of course, that it is essentially an essential next step to be able to cross one idea with empirical data. And I think that the beauty of this sort of thing is that it's not impossible.

It's not impossible, it is dialectic. And in the process of designing, I think this sort of methodology, even though I only use it to analyze already the design projects,

is that we can put in computation what our goals are in terms of the way people are going to relate our spaces

with a methodology that starts to see and sort of quantify those relations. So if I'm going to design something, usually I'm expecting people are going to use it in a certain way

and hoping to create the opportunity for certain types of interaction or not. And what this helps me with is with understanding that I'm doing what I'm doing,

or the exact opposite. That's why I chose the style of the project at the end, but I'm pretty sure they didn't want to segregate it to me. No, I'm not going to be so complicated or special.

So I really like the idea that you choose the projects. I don't know the projects, so I've never seen them before, and I don't know how they work. But they seem like really nice, especially because I know what you're thinking. So the one that you saw that should be more segregated, that the architect wanted everyone to have less amount of private space,

or private, whatever, private life, did that work? What did you find, apart from the mathematics?

Mathematics doesn't tell me yes, but I didn't do the sociological study. No, no, your feeling. So I know the mathematics told you that the designer did what he intended to do. But what was your feeling when you saw the space? It was like a ghetto, or it was like, I don't know. I've never seen, I don't know what it is.

It's not a ghetto, it's a pleasant space, but I think it's a powerful space. It's like mountainous. Yeah, that kind of goes like that, so it doesn't allow for a lot of things happening in the gardens.

But I'm not sure if people use it a lot or not. I don't think I'd like to know the next time I went and did it, to have empirical data to compare it with.

Well, my students analyzed this project once a year, and one of the things is that the problem that we have nowadays is the parking. So the parking is an observant public space, but anyway, it's a really pleasant place because the way the draw, the gardens, and the living spaces create a feeling of a park.

We're going to get our view around the park, so it's really interesting. And people like to view them, so they also need to view us. And there's a lot of things, it's going to be much brighter and much more,

you know, when you inside it, it's going to be much better, and much in the idea of the mocks inside the garden, and what it's like to come outside. Ah, so everything in there is a garden. So I wasn't, I can't see that far and that good,

but everything in there is a garden, there's no street. Yeah, there are streets, that's why. Ah, okay, okay, yeah. That's why I said that I had some thoughts about this method, because I made this study in one part of the city, and it was a part of the city that the team thought that there was problems,

maybe because we are architects and we see things in a way, and we made a space index and the area was really integrated, it was great, but then we made a classical social method,

we made an environment with the people, with the neighbors, and we found lots, lots of more things. So I think the interesting thing is to connect the different methods. Yes, yes, because if we stay with this, we get results.

So it's not going to work yet. I agree. It's in front of the answer to, it was not integrated. I have a question for Christina. Thank you for that, that was a great presentation. And I also wanted to, I noticed that the definition for the computation thinking,

is almost exactly along the lines of design thinking, minus the third part of the introduction of the data. But I'm curious, how do you feel, it seems like one of the problems

that you're up against is the public and the general population putting their work into the kind of web semantics form, and you talked about the software that you all were developing that made it easy for researchers to kind of put it into that language.

But you also mentioned that there was something else that, I can't remember what the software was, but it was software at all that would go and look at already existing data, and to mine that data, kind of put it into this, because the fundamental problem even for kind of information on the web

is that people do not kind of put it on there, and it doesn't exist, it's not true. I'm in the category of it might be true, but it's not known. So do you see the future of that kind of going to writing software

that might look into existing data structures that can analyze that data and formulate it into a web semantics, because it doesn't seem probable that the majority of the population, me included, would take the extra time to kind of formulate that work

and put it into that. So I'm wondering, do you see the kind of future of hacking people like me and hacking people like you who can bring it together? I have another question, too, that happened. Well, that's a very good opportunity for me to talk a little bit more

about that distinction, which I think is really good. The semantic web was proposed in the 2000s, and we are 15 years ago, and some people I worked with said, well, the web was very quick to take off. When will the semantic web take off? And really, that's your question, right?

And now we are seeing the semantic web taking off more friendly, because of those automatic processes you were talking about. I think DBPD, which was a record that linked all the data, is one of those initiatives. The data internet, Wikipedia, is not, well, it's mostly textual data,

but there is lots of things and lots of patterns in those pages which can be explored. If you can search on the basis of those patterns, then in a way you can get more easily to information which then people can understand.

So in a way, for example, search, that's one of the big markets today, search is taking advantage, a lot of advantage, of automatic analysis of documents. So documents and lots of intrinsic structure which can be extracted

and related to other documents and combined semantic evidence. So I think most of it will be networked. The other half, that's where I'm working, and we are sort of building tools that get people to describe things on the go, sort of.

So to give you an example, if people are in the lab, they have those lab notebooks which are rules of what they are doing, et cetera. If you can get that into an electronic form, then in that book there are lots and lots of things

you can associate with the experiments and consider the automatic method. So that kind of extra information we need, we can in a way get it going around the processes that people already use and try to get it more automatically. That's one of the issues. And in some more formal context, of course,

if people are describing artifacts in a museum, then they will probably get richer and richer vocabularies so that things can be shared and exposed. And I think one of the issues, for example, so you were talking about the collection with the sensors.

Sensor data is everywhere, and one of the issues is how can we find things that already exist, or someone has already collected, and I think more and more the processes will include some automatic collection on that data.

And good or bad, it will help us locate things and then at least narrow our searches and get to the people where they are available. I think it will be a mix, yes. Can I, can the speaker also make a question? No, it's kind of the same thing that you were asking.

What I thought about reducing the economic factor in software, don't you see that in your area,

don't you see that as a wall that needs, if the wall was out, the economic factor, it would be much easier for people to get information and to access it because the sensor in the GPS,

the direct information are also expensive software for people like me, for example, a single or individual are expensive software.

If the economic factor goes to waste and everybody can access it, it wouldn't be much easier for, for example, for your discipline to have information. I think we are going into, right now there is lots of initiatives

in the sense of getting data more accessible to people. Everyone knows about citizen science, so people are more capable, look everywhere on the smartphone, which is well, much better than computers five years ago,

and so people are quite enabled to those activities and then even the processes to extract information from that data for exploring it yourself. I think that you get much easier and much more open.

Open source is one of the, is one of the path, but not so much of the open later, because of creating more open forms is one of the strong enables of many innovative explorations of the data.

So GIS is one of the examples of data which used to be quite within the operating systems and this is no longer the case, so more and more, yeah, more and more you get data which is fully available and which can be used by applications

which are themselves more and more accessible to the citizens. Yeah, just a quick question. I wanted to know, you know, I certainly abide by the majority of strategies

that you were talking about in terms of how we should look at cities and how we should think about community input. My only kind of issue would be what, how do you feel about that final step when the public has to maybe comment, what happens when the public is wrong

and when the community is not necessarily, you know, their wants do not kind of go with the reality of what what the city might be. So for example, I'm on a committee, a city committee in Lexington, Kentucky right now,

we're looking at certain monuments that were put up during our Civil War and those monuments were of men who fought on the losing side of the war. They were put up by a group of people who during that time wanted to revise their history.

So now we are looking back at it as a lot of my country is kind of questioning what those monuments are. And the majority of the people in the community want those statues to stay. And I think it's not the majority, I don't think it's a vocal majority of the people want those to stay.

But the reality is that they should not stay and they really should be moved in this public space. So that's an example where when we get to that final step, that kind of input might not exactly go with you know, producing a positive effect on the urban environment. I believe that

we can divide it in three categories, like the moral one, in New York it is the moral, the functional one in architecture, the function of the of the urban space is very important and people that don't study, don't actually study the urban space might make

some bad choices. Everybody expects that. But as I said, the architect as a part of mediating the reasoning between the subjects

and the institutions. I think that that part has to be a little bit more about ego, you know cause people will have to understand that sometimes when, for example, an architect makes an house for a client sometimes the client says I want

this like this, the architect has to say but you're going to regret it cause you cannot, for example, as a bedroom the next room, I don't know the storage room of your food you understand, with the same door in your case, the moral factor, in my opinion

this is my opinion I believe that the heritage of the city, of the society is good and bad in Portugal, in every country there is bad heritage but it cannot be forgotten cause, for example, I believe in the phrase that the symbol like I said

is the try, try harder fail, but try again I believe that the failures of the urban development in your case, the mausoleums or statues are a failure, but they cannot be ignored, they cannot be erased from Eastern, you know

I guess, you know for me it's, I'll put another example cause it drives kind of policy, you know the politics of public wants and desires will drive policies that will get built at that particular place, so you mentioned the kind of McDonalds, let's say the majority

the only majority of the people want to have McDonalds in the most important kind of public square in whatever place there is in the community and politicians would pick up on that, you can't ignore it as a politician, you can't ignore the majority of the population so I'm just, it becomes

a kind of a thin line between you know, using your kind of strategies, which is fantastic, up to that point of, ok, do we open it up for open source design thinking for that particular place cause in theory, yes it would be great if everything aligns the way you want it

to align, but the moment it doesn't then you're done yeah I mean, it's more of a statement for example, in your report we had that case, McDonalds you were saying, the physical square I'm not that keen, McDonalds I'm not that keen, McDonalds

I'm not that keen, McDonalds I'm not keen, McDonalds I'm just thinking about it I don't need it I must get myself outside of that thinking I'm not thinking about me about what I think about it I'm thinking about like an outside subject visualizing the problem

but I think that what you said for me what I I kind of visualize about the urban actors and the planners is the normally the mistakes, what I think is the mistakes are normally made by

institutions and not about subjects because places are developed for subjects if a majority of subjects doesn't like a place or a new space, for example a microspace, that microspace is not going to work, it's going to be abandoned so if it is needed to have a McDonalds

in a square for that space not to die, there must be a McDonalds in that space not to die I understand, it's a bad thing but it's there is the same important thing I'm trying to say in English it's the lesser bag of the bags you know

or McDonalds you understand? I think that in this case we are talking about something in thread in McDonalds I believe that for example graffiti not all traffickers for example, graffiti was born from games

and it has evolved to become art and artists have spread this drastically as a strong emotional connection to where they claim but if you look at it nowadays it's becoming more effective but there is a lot of people that don't appreciate it

I'm not talking about the rubbish but everywhere 50 you understand? but if you see nowadays for example in our city graffiti like the examples that I showed can become a framing of an unproven space can give you identity

an identity that didn't exist and can actually improve the space you alright? that's fine really really we have to be careful I teach the truth in that example of the study that we made

the architects thought the first idea is to solve the problem of the public space transforming that public space for citizens and putting out the cars and we discovered that we thought that the houses were abandoned but they were not

the street didn't have commerce that was the only problem but it was after making the space it was after making the social inquiry and so on and so on at the end with that knowledge so it was a tool the project was

not to make the streets only for let's see let's think a little bit more because the first solution the first thing that we thought it was a problem after all for the community it's not a problem I was just saying that this case of McDonalds in

Bristol Square is an important case because in fact nobody wanted McDonalds in there because the cafe was a very personal cafe and a very beautiful one and so nobody wanted McDonalds in fact when McDonalds went in there it was the first probably the first importance

in the place in the portal to recuperate the function of the Party 60 which was not functioning very well in fact it was February 16 so I was happy to hear the questions you were discussing

and I remember that seven years ago we were in Portugal we had a competition by the TV program to elect the most important politicians of all times and the guy who was actually our dictator until 50 years ago

so the conclusion was there are judges everywhere but we have to change the name of the bridge yes just to say that in relation to your comments

I think the process and the way you structure the process where both parts participate is very important otherwise if we start on a who's right basis I don't think the process is well structured the process is not a starting point

where I am right and you are right so let's end the process to see who wins the right competition I think the difficulty in this kind of approach to urban planning is precisely

the balance between what is the administrative project the legislative framework of all these issues relating urban transformation urban morphology urban process urban questions that are

almost set in a wide scale in a wide framework of issues and the thing that worries Mr. Mike McKay or Mr. David it's my issue it's my universe of things that I can domain

but the process is to be able to combine all of these scale of things the ones more personal the ones more collective the ones more administrative those related with infrastructure are common to all of us and

the way the process is structured for me it's really the hard thing to establish if we are able to to get a very good structure or good in not in terms of quality but in terms of the operational dimension of the process

if that structure is well set set in a balanced way I think this kind of discussion between what is right or what is not so right or wrong they turn out to be the main issues

they will get over naturally within the process so why? because I think if the process is well set we all learn from it and we all learn with each other and by learning with each other I may think that our different positions

are after all not so different so I think the balance is a very hard thing to get the thing that we should try to get and I think that this kind of approach that I also think they are very interesting they are walking in that way

trying to head different layers and different scales of issues on a wider range of planning approach that are sometimes very general, very pragmatic

very upscales but then they fail when they have to deal with everyday things with the Michael McKay issues and the David issues and the Fred issues and the issues of all of us so where is the platform

where all the issues that are too common to us exist and where is the platform of our own issues so I think that's the discussion here it's interesting well give me the last question that's mine let's

stay for the end my question is to Christina it's not quite a question it's a child question and we are all talking about different strategies of thinking

architecture or something else but there's something that it's that question that child question okay we vent we humans vent the language

the language is the way of communication and we vent the language of computing we put one and zero and make the computers working and then the computers make another language they need more and they create a new language

that puts us to learn a new way of communicating with computers and computing with different ways of knowledge so my question is if we can

make a language that goes everywhere in that semantic way because when I see the graphics and I see that okay that language with so many symbols and letters

it will be quite difficult for everyone establish a way of communication as myself or everyone because that kind of language have some we have gaps between that language so the problem is we need to

think how can how can be the language that we can communicate even with the semantic web and I think semantic is so wonderful the word itself and how we can make that language I think the next

step in computing is not one and zero it's one to nine when we do that to one to nine maybe we can have another language and we all understand what we are all saying and everything you can share

because today we have a gap between the logical language of computing and the non logical language of ourselves so my question is how about the new language? Well this can be difficult I think well

there's one thing very difficult for you there's one thing which I don't agree with going from zero to one to zero to nine is irrelevant the expressive probably there is a question

which is typically handled in computer science which is what is the expressive that's our language and I don't think either that our natural language is illogical logical is deeply ingrained in our natural language so it's a bit of a more flexible logic but logic is there

otherwise we couldn't reason talking in natural language so I think that gap that you were talking about that's a very interesting point of view because there is a gap well in the computer ones and zeros it could be computing with cells it's the same thing because the underlying

principles have been established and there are limits to what can be computed but not because of the ones and zeros and so I think that gap is getting narrower because well we have in all our devices

we are getting the interfaces to get near a more natural expression of our thoughts but if our thoughts are not clear there is no way the machine will make them clear so in a way what I've been talking about is getting

formalizing the things about which we already have some agreements and well established thoughts in that case we can put it down and make a lot of computation and why do you remove all this machinery I think it's because of

complexity because the part of the world that we are aiming at understanding and manipulating is getting wider and wider we expect things from computers which they can deliver for sure but I think there is lots of knowledge that is very well formalized in people's

heads and which can be shared and that's the part that we can at least practically aim to capture with semantic way of things I agree very much I think

this is a good example of what we want to do to liberate the equations we are not trying to finish the issues but we are not trying to degrade it's necessary well in the organization

we need a symposium so that everyone can speak and liberate a lot of time in many symposiums so that the speaker is not finishing talking

and the other one is trying to initiate a certain time to pause and wait I'm not talking about space syntax because we will have other activities

space syntax conversations will be present but I'd like to say there are two things well, in the first is some kind of build we have some not our own school and we are in our school

we are in the development of optimization and architecture well, the first next study was on space syntax some more action we will you will see

but now we are getting something on ontologies ontologies are some poor or other formal methods but we think because they are also developed I'm talking about architecture

space syntax is very well developed there are many groups of ontologies ontologies is one that is not so well developed in architecture and we think it has

very great potential well if I talk on the conversations I have for example, Christina on that subject it will be very long I'm not going that way

but well, it's some sort of invitation we have already some talks with other schools for example engineering faculty science faculty of university

mathematics group with with foreign universities to create a great team to develop well ontological ontological methods ontological methods

to create to provide architecture well this is an invitation one more if you want to participate you will see any kind of of interest

in your schools to participate in this kind of effort because of these efforts to be the the great participation from some some countries not only one but so many groups of several countries

will be very we are trying to participate in the program of Horizon 2020 I see no the program and this is an invitation

and I would say this is not only for architects obviously Christina may have spared us from technical intricacies of doing some some centers in to define a single concept probably well

because it's very hard for an architect I think very very sharp very hard job but we need work to make doing the mathematics the mathematicians do and so on it has to be a good way

to serve for the knowledge and skills every every one of those skills are very interesting although architects don't have the

the appeal to the technical intricacies for example developing the first part of this presentation a very well scheme of first scheme of architectural ontology

I think well the architects are actually necessary to create because it's not the engineer that is going to create that he can translate that in the language protege and write something but he is not going to create

the ontology and so it must be a correlation between those several those several states thank you so much we are now going to lunch you have in the briefcase

the I will be here 5, 2, 3 ok and you can leave things if you want thank you so much