Heim, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Bauerle, R., Schwarze, C., and Von Stechow, A., editors, Meaning, Use, and Interpretation, pages 164--189. DeGruyter, Berlin.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....does not display linklike behaviour. Unlike the link, the position of the tail is not universally constant. Example 2.5 above would be given the following analysis in Vallduv i s framework: 2. 6) A: What does John drink B: g [ l John] drinks] f beer] Heim s theory of File Change Semantics (Heim 1983) compares the hearer s knowledge store to a filing system. Each file card denotes an entity and contains information on it. The hearer s knowledge about a certain entity is comparable to the entries on 1 The universality of the ordering of discourse functions will be discussed in Section 2.6. 2 ....

Heim, Irene. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, ed. by R. Bauerle et al. Berlin:de Gruyter.

....away . A certain date in (27) for instance cannot be interpreted as one specific date, say April 1, which is such that each of the contextually relevant husbands forgot it. En s alternative is to define specificity in terms of discourse relations, exploiting the File Change Semantics of Heim (1982, 1983). She suggests that all noun phrases carry a pair of indices which mark their discourse referents and which roughly correspond to the file cards of Heim. Each of these indices carries a definiteness feature. The first index represents the discourse referent of the noun phrase, and the second ....

Heim, Irene: 1983, `File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness', in R. Buerle, C. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 164--189.

....ref=4 tea fa , he prefers f typ=cr ref=4 coffee f . correction focus) 10) But sometimes, fa typ=v ref=5 even fa f typ=v ref=5 Ben f drinks tea. adverb focus) The fifth type of focus is designed to cover foci which do not belong to one of the first four types. We assume with (Heim, 1983) that there is a file card for each discourse referent which serves as a repository of information about that referent. The constituents of an utterance which are in focus specify information which is to be added to a referent s file card. This concept of focus is based on (Vallduv i, 1992) To ....

I. Heim. 1983. File Change Semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In R. Bauerle, C. Schwarz, and A. von Stechow, editors, Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, pages 164--189. de Gruyter, Berlin.

....answerhood conditions: to know what an interrogative sentence means is to know what under which circumstances counts as a true answer. See [13] for argumentation and an overview. 7 Such as game theoretical semantics ( 21, 22] discourse representation theory ( 24, 26] file change semantics ([19, 20]) update semantics ( 37] dynamic semantics ( 12, 3] 8 Within the formal semantics tradition, this development is associated with the pioneering work of Montague, Kaplan, Lewis, Cresswell. 34] presents an extensive overview of this tradition. 6 original, but rather its incorporation ....

Irene Heim, `File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness ', in: Rainer Bauerle, Christoph Schwarze & Arnim von Stechow (eds), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, de Gruyter, Berlijn, pp.

....information packaging and Update Semantics. There are other dynamic frameworks, however, that do provide a richer structure in their representation of hearers models of the common ground or information states, e.g. Discourse Representation Theory (drt) and Situation Theory. Among these is Heim s (1982, 1983) File Change Semantics (fcs) which views them as file like structures. In talking about Stalnaker s common ground, which is defined as a bare set of possible worlds, Heim points out: From my point of view, Stalnaker] thus restricts himself to one aspect of the common ground [ From his ....

....of file cards or discourse markers vis a vis the discourse universe. Issues of global and local focus in Sidner 1981, cognitive status in Gundel, Hedberg Zacharski 1992, and ranking of utterance centers in Centering Theory (Grosz, Joshi Weinstein 1983) are issues of file card management (Heim 1983 aims to capture familiarity and novelty from a fcs perspective) File card management is responsible for the creation of novel file cards and the activation of already familiar but dormant file cards. As is noted in Heim 1993, there is a strong but imperfect correlation between familiarity and ....

Heim, Irene, 1983. File Change Semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Reiner Bauerle et al., eds., Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, 164-189. Berlin: de Gruyter.

.... equation involving quantifiers and pronouns has been tackled from different viewpoints. Firstly, there are the dynamic theories. Secondly, there are the theories originated along the lines of Heim (1982) and Kamp (1981) such as Discourse Representation Theory (drt) and File Change Semantics, Heim (1983). Independently of the viewpoint adopted, pronouns are still approached from one of two perspectives, namely, E type and bound. The next sections are devoted to a short but concise explanation of these matters. 47 4.4 Discourse Representation Theory drt is nowadays a theory of semantic content ....

Heim, I.: 1983, File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definites, in R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze and Stechow (eds), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 164--178.

....we similarly treat it as denoting a unique subset of a familiar referent. 1 Introduction How do referring expressions denote According to Russell, a definite description such as the King of France , denotes a unique individual by virtue of its meaning. But, according to Familiarity Theory (Heim, 1983), referring expressions need not denote uniquely by virtue of their meaning as they refer to individuals made familiar by the discourse or other context. This observation plays a key role in Centering Theory (Grosz and Sidner, 1986; Grosz et al. 1995) and other computational approaches in which ....

I. Heim. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, editors, Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, pages 164--189. de Gruyter, Berlin.

....process depends on the context, and builds the context. 2 The architecture of information states and the update process will depend partly on the object language, and on those features of language use # Preparation of this paper was part of the Esprit Basic Research Project Dyana (6852) 1 See [Hei82, Hei83, Kam81] for early formal work in this tradition, which has its roots in the work of Karttunen and Stalnaker. 2 Associations with the hermeneutic circle are understandable, but perhaps are not entirely correct. After all, there is a di#erence between a circle and a spiral. 1 that are taken into ....

Irene Heim. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Rainer Bauerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow, editors, Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language. de Gruyter, Berlin, 1983.

....among alternative readings, and perhaps reasoning about why you might have said this, and thus updates his or her view of the world. The notion goes back at least to (Gazdar, 1979) and has been taken up within such theories as situation semantics (Barwise and Perry, 1983) file change semantics (Heim, 1983), discourse representation theory (DRT) Kamp, 1984; Kamp and Reyle, 1993) and dynamic predicate logic (DPL) Groenendijk and Stockhof, 1991) A striking property of all these theories apart from (Gazdar, 1979) is that in order to accommodate the idea that meanings are dynamic they provide ....

Heim, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Baur, R., editor, Meaning, Use and the Interpretation of Language, pages 164--189, Berlin. Walter de Gruyter.

....type of discourse (see [Litman 85, Lambert Carberry 91, Ramshaw 91] Most of these theories postulate several levels of plans, each level handling a distinct phenomenon (discourse management, domain knowledge, etc. 4 Theory (DRT) Kamp 81] and that of [Polanyi 88, Reichman 85, Cohen 83, Heim 83] Extending beyond dialogue length discourse, Van Dijk 72] discusses large scale text organization and defines the notion of macro structures and [Rumelhart 72] develops the idea of story grammars. The functionalist argument goes as follows: discourse exhibits internal structure, where the ....

Heim, I. 1983. File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness. In R. Bauerle, Ch. Schwartze, and A. von Stechow (eds), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language. Berlin: De Gruyter. 40

....or when whose meaning is not known to one of them. The observation can be summarised that a np is marked when the reference is not established between dialogue participants. The phenomenon can basically be studied by presuppositional theory of the indefinite such as File Change Semantics [Hei83] though the notion of unfamiliarity must be defined differently for Japanese. 1 We do not discuss how the unfamiliarity should be defined for Japanese, but point out that the dynamic property of the indefinite can be also observed in the use of the particle. That is, the np marked with the ....

Irene Heim. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Bauerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow, editors, Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, pages 164--189. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1983.

....: 31 2.2.1 Karttunen 1976 : 31 vii 2.2.2 Webber 1979; 1981 : 32 2.2.3 Sidner 1981 : 33 2.2. 4 Heim 1982, 1983 : 34 2.3 Referentiality : 36 2.3.1 Related Research on Turkish : 36 2.3.2 Referential Expressions : ....

....on English. 2.2 Some Related Research on English Karttunen 1976, in his pioneering research study, distinguishes indefinite NPs that can serve as antecedents for definite pronouns from those that cannot, labeling the former discourse referents. Later work was done by Webber 1979, 1981 and Heim 1982, 1983. In the following, their research will be reviewed. 2.2.1 Karttunen 1976 Karttunen specifies the contexts that provide future reference for a novel individual introduced into the discourse. For example, the utterance Bill is not a linguist (Karttunen 1976:365) is not 3 Note that balik ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Heim, Irene 1983. "File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness" in R.

....a simple example, shown in (37) 37) Q: As for the CRAZY chef, what did SHE cook A: The CRAZY chef cooked) th (a rack of SPAM. rh In this example, the material in parentheses with the subscript th corresponds to the link to prior utterances, or a pointer to a file card in Heim s framework (Heim 1983; also cf. Engdahl and Vallduv i 1994, Hoffman 1995) This file card represents the discourse entity that is updated by the utterance. Conversely, the material marked by the rh subscript corresponds to the contribution that the speaker makes to hearer s model (i.e. the information that is to be ....

Heim, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Bauerle, R., Schwarze, C., and von Stechow, A., editors, Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, pages 164--189. W. de Gruyter, Berlin.

....syntax and semantics as manifested by quantificational NP interpretations. As to the aspect of referential NP interpretations, there are also renewed interests in dynamic NP interpretations, following the lead of a discourse representation theory by Kamp (1981) or the file change semantics by Heim (1983). There have also been recent attempts to combine the two aspects, for instance in theories of scope by Poesio (1991) and Reyle (1993) While the quantificational side of these theories does not appear to present a comprehensive and explanatory answer to the kind of data the dissertation is ....

....(Quantifier Over Referential Group) The rest of his formalism shows how to make inference over scope forests for reference disambiguation. Reyle (1993; 1995) proposes a way of dealing with ambiguities in natural language by extending the standard Discourse Representation Theory (cf. Kamp (1981) Heim (1983)) The goal of his proposal is to approximate human reasoning that apparently works even in the absence of further clues as to the various ambiguities in natural language. Reyle (1993) introduces the language of under specified DRSs, or UDRSs, to represent natural language and describes the proof ....

Heim, Irene. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness.

....is closely related to d(iscourse) linking in the sense of [Pesetsky 1987] 4 As Ellen Prince (p.c. points out, in its broadest sense, the term referential is taken as evoking any entity 4 For a discussion of the differences between reference and discourse reference, refer to [Heim 1983, 164 166] Phrase at issue specificity others referentiality John is looking for a Norwegian specific referential (but she didn t show up) new filecard John is looking for a Norwegian nonspecific referential (but he ll never find one) new filecard I wish I were a Norwegian. predicative ....

Heim, Irene. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness.

....a different approach for pronouns. However, in between these we find short, non unique definite descriptions like the man , which seem to have more in common with pronouns than with certain other definite descriptions, and which have been treated, like pronouns, as referring to familiar referents (Heim, 1983). The reason this is a problem is that, when we come across a definite description, we have no way of knowing which type it is. Indeed, while the use of short and full NPs to refer to more or less salient entities has been recognised (Hitzeman and Poesio, 1998) the distinction referred to remains ....

....salient enough to be pronominalized: John looked in the mirror. He saw a red car. He thought he recognised the driver. He did a U turn. When he looked again, the car it was still behind him. Similarly to pronouns, the car requires an appropriate discourse context containing a familiar referent (Heim, 1983) for dereferencing to be possible, since it clearly does not denote by virtue of there existing a unique thing which is a car. On the other hand, it does seem that certain definite descriptions, like the most eligible bachelor in Transylvania , don t require a particular discourse context but do ....

Heim, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness.

....house is a building. With a representation technique combining the advantages of multilayered object oriented semantic networks with representational means corresponding to the method of Skolemization in logics MESNET achieves an expressive power which is lacking in DRT [12] or File Change Theory [6]. The encapsulation of knowledge in semantic shells is a means for delimiting immanent knowledge which defines the inherent meaning of a concept from situative knowledge corresponding to the use of the concept in the description of a certain situation. Together with the corresponding set and ....

I. Heim. File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness. In R. Bauerle et al., editors, Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language. de Gruyter, Berlin, 1983.

....that a nondefault mode of update is (in the speaker s eyes) required at that point in discourse. The four instruction types are the result of different combinations of focus, link, and tail. In order to understand how instructions work, let us view information states as file like constructs (see Heim 1983). Files are collections of file cards. File cards correspond to what are called discourse referents, entities, or markers in other frameworks. Each file card has a number of records analogous to conditions in Discourse Representation Theory (Kamp Reyle 1993) written on it listing ....

Heim, Irene, 1983. File Change Semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Reiner Bauerle et al., eds., Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, 164-189.

....quantifiers to discuss the E type definiteness operator. We then end with a discussion of distributive interpretation and how this interacts with this definiteness operator. 1. 2 What Dynamic Logic is About The main discussions in formal discourse theory in the tradition of [Kamp 1981, Heim 1983] deal with so called identity anaphora. These are referential expression that function as place holder (in DRT: a discourse referent, in DPL: a bound variable) for an antecedent expression. This is best illustrated by some examples: 2) Every farmer who has a donkey beats it. 3) A man is ....

Heim I. 1983, `File Change Semantics and Familiarity Theory of Definiteness ', in: [Bauerle, Schwarze & von Stechow 1983].

....references to at most three informational components: 1. a link, a sentence element that refers to the locus of update, 2. a tail, a sentence element that refines the locus of update, and 3. a focus, a sentence element that points to the actual update potential. Vallduv i uses Heim s file metaphor (Heim (1983)) to describe the roles of the three kinds of reference in the information update more exactly. The information store of the listener could be seen as a collection of entity denoting file cards. On each file there are entries recording relations and attributes of the entity denoted by that ....

Heim, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness.

....pronoun has to be overt if it is anaphorically linked to its antecedent, otherwise it can be dropped. Note that the antecedent NP can be familiar (and thus definite, as in (5b) and (6b) or new (and thus indefinite, as in (6a) If we adopt a familiaritybased approach to definites (e.g. based on Heim 1983), then familiarity and accessibility are orthogonal, and object drop is only sensitive to the latter. Crosslinguistically, the constraint in (12) predicts that languages classified as allowing indefinite object drop in the literature (European Span 2 Here and in the following, we refer to the ....

Heim, Irene. 1983. File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness.

....of texts, and does not extend downwards to the interpretation of the constituents of sentences. In this respect Gazdar s model contrasts with the accounts of presupposition proposed by Karttunen [Kar74] and Heim [Hei83a] as well as with the accounts of anaphora proposed by Kamp [Kam81] Heim [Hei82, Hei83b] and Groenendijk and Stokhof [GS91a] all of which employ dynamic interpretation at the subsentence level. Central to Gazdar s model is his notion of satisfiable incrementation. The satisfiable incrementation of a context X with a set Y of propositions is just the original context plus all those ....

....whereas for Heim accommodation must consist in augmenting a set of worldsequence pairs, van der Sandtian accommodation is simply addition of discourse referents and conditions to a DRS. This di#erence could be minimised if the CCP model were presented in terms of Heimian filecards (c.f. [Hei82, Hei83b]) so that accommodation would consist of either creating new filecards, or adding conditions to existing ones. Regarding question (1) van der Sandt s theory shares the flexibility of Heim s. If a presupposition lacks an antecedent in a DRS, van der Sandt allows accommodation to take place in any ....

Heim, I., 1983. "File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definites". In R. Bauerle, C.Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 164--189.

....theory of focus interpretation is that judgements concerning unacceptable placement of focus, as in (17) are also left to the pragmatics. Pro active focus 9 (17) A: What did Mary do to John # B: She kissed JOHN. This is because constraints on contexts of the type Rooth proposes for focus and Heim (1983) proposes for definites say nothing about accommodation correctly, since such matters are, from the point of view of the grammar, non deterministic. An example of accommodation and focus, due originally to Lakoff, is given in (18) 18) John called Mary a republican, and then [ Mary] insulted ....

Heim, I. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness, in R. Bäuerle et al (eds) Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language. W. de Gruyter, Berlin.

....idea, viz. dynamic predicate logic; here we ll simply remark that the key idea of adding a procedural dimension to logical semantics underlies other important approaches to Natural Language Semantics, including Discourse Representation Theory (Kamp and Reyle [22] and File Change Semantics (Heim [19]) The reason for the widespread acceptance of such systems of dynamic semantics is their intuitive appeal combined with their applicability to many important semantic phenomena, such as the interaction of tense and temporal reference. Dynamic semantics has even been successfully applied to ....

I. Heim. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definites. In R. B¨auerle, C. Schwarze, and A. Von Stechow, editors, Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language. De Gruyter, Berlin, 1983.

....since it asks for an axiomatisation of the part of our language that really is concerned with presuppositional reasoning. A brief inspection shows that the equational principles valid for [1; ffl; are markedly different from the principles valid in the propositional logic of DPL . See [8] and [18] Thus, presuppositional reasoning is truly a distinct branch of dynamics from relational resetting. In fact in the classical system DPL of Groenendijk en Stokhof the presuppositional aspect is fully eliminated by their use of total assignments on a fixed set of variables. In dynamic ....

I. Heim. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, editors, Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, pages 164--189. De Gruyter, Berlin, 1983.

....house is a building. With a representation technique combining the advantages of multilayered object oriented semantic networks with representational means corresponding to the method of Skolemization in logics MESNET achieves an expressive power which is lacking in DRT [12] or File Change Theory [6]. The encapsulation of knowledge in semantic shells is a means for delimiting immanent knowledge which defines the inherent meaning of a concept from situative knowledge corresponding to the use of the concept in the description of a certain situation. Together with the corresponding set and ....

I. Heim. File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness. In R. Bauerle et al., editors, Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language. de Gruyter, Berlin, 1983.

....steering. In other words, yes, grammar plays the role of guiding the way we process information, but, no, grammar s role is not well placed at the transition from syntax to semantics. The semantics that we want to develop is a version of Heim s file change semantics for indefinites (see [Hei83] and [Hei90] 1 In our version the meaning of ( is going to be introduce a new file for storing the subsequent information. The action that ( means will be modelled by an appropriate mathematical object, In the style of program semantics. Analogously, a right bracket is going to mean ....

I. Heim. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, editors, Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, pages 164--189. De Gruyter, Berlin, 1983.

....as mental hooks on which attributes are hung. Discourse models have been used extensively to provide a formalization for the distinction between salient entities, nonsalient entities, and discourse new hearer old entities. Another view of discourse models is found in the work of Kamp 1981 and Heim 1983. Their theories are a hybrid between a dynamic truth conditional semantics and a true theory of the discourse model. Kamp s discourse representation structures (DRSs) and Heim s file change semantics provide both a discourse model account of definiteness and a suprasentential method of ....

....expressed by means of a Reinhart like view of links as designating an address of sorts under which the oncoming information is classified (cf. Reinhart 1982 and x 3.1. 2) A link is an address pointer in the sense that it directs the hearer to a given address (or file card in Reinhart s (1982) or Heim s (1983) terms) in the hearer s knowledge store, under which the information carried by the sentence is entered. Pointing to this address is part of the information anchoring role of the ground. By starting a sentence with a link speakers indicate to hearers that the focus must be entered under the ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Heim, I. 1983. File Change Semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness.

....The complement of the focus is the ground salient knowledge that the speaker assumes to be part of the hearer s beliefs. The ground may be further divided into link and tail. The link corresponds to a large extent to what in some frameworks is called the topic. Vallduv i adapts the metaphor of Heim 1983 and proposes that the knowledge store should be thought of as a collection of file cards, each of which acts as an address. The knowledge store is modified and updated by creating new file cards and by entering information in ones that already exist. A link is an address pointer: it instructs ....

Heim, Irene. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness.

No context found.

Heim, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Bauerle, R., Schwarze, C., and Von Stechow, A., editors, Meaning, Use, and Interpretation, pages 164--189. DeGruyter, Berlin.

No context found.

Irene Heim. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In R. Bauerle, Ch.

No context found.

Heim, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Bauerle, R., Schwarze, C., and Von Stechow, A., editors, Meaning, Use, and Interpretation, pages 164--189. DeGruyter, Berlin.

No context found.

Heim, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Bauerle, R., Schwarze, C., and Von Stechow, A., editors, Meaning, Use, and Interpretation, pages 164--189. DeGruyter, Berlin.

No context found.

I. Heim. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In R. Buerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, editors, Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, pages 164--189. De Gruyter, Berlin, 1983.

No context found.

Heim, I., 1983. "File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definites". In R. Bauerle, C.Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 164--189.

No context found.

Irene Heim. 1983. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Rainer Bauerle et al., editors, Meaning, Use, and the Interpretation of Language. Berlin: de Gruyter.

No context found.

Heim, I.: 1983, `File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definites,' in: Bauerle et al. (eds.) 1983, 164--178.

No context found.

Heim, I. (1983). `File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness'. In R. B auerle, C. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds.) (1983), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language. De Gruyter, Berlin, 164--189.

No context found.

I. Heim. File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness. In R. Bauerle et al., editors, Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language. de Gruyter, Berlin, 1983.

No context found.

Heim, I. File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definiteness. In Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds.). Berlin: de Gruyter, 1983.

No context found.

I. Heim, "File Change Semantics and the Familiarity Theory of Definites, " in Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze and A. von Stechow, eds. De Gruyter, Berlin, 1983, pages 164178.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC