Arne Jonsson. Dialogue actions for natural language interfaces. In IJCAI, pages 1405-1413, 1995.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....Design Principles for Dialog Managers This section presents a brief overview of some principles underlying the design of a good dialog manager. There is a great deal of literature describing what a good dialog manager should look like, what it should do, and what it should expect of the user [1, 3, 7, 2] . Such design principles, and users expectations of the system, are ascertained using what are known as Wizard of Oz experiments [5, 4] where a user is told that she is interacting with a computer, while in reality there is a hidden person producing the computer s responses. The design ....

Arne Jonsson. Dialogue actions for natural language interfaces. In IJCAI, pages 1405-1413, 1995.

....could be used concerning any of these sets of agents. Some, however, have pointed to the differences in communication styles between human human and human machine communication as a reason for anticipating different taxonomies, and not carrying over the insights from one to the other (Jonsson, 1995). 18: How detailed should a dialogue act taxonomy be There are many subtle gradations in speech act verbs, often relating to different facets of the participants or normative attitudes towards the content of the act (e.g. state, assert, inform, con fess, concede, maintain, The ....

Jonsson, A. (1995). Dialogue actions for natural language interfaces. In Proc. of the 14th IJCAI, pages 1405--1411, Montreal, Canada.

....of contextual information during the argumentation process (Section 3.1) 2 Related Research Our work is similar in some ways to IACAS [Vreeswijk, 1994] an interactive system for generating arguments. However, IACAS does not tailor its arguments to a particular user. The system described in [Jonsson, 1995] contains a dialogue manager which directs the interaction between the user and the system by taking advantage of observations of the user s behaviour during information seeking interactions. However, the reasoning and interactive capabilities required 3 for these interactions are simpler than ....

Jonsson, A. (1995). Dialogue actions for natural language interfaces. In IJCAI95 -- Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1405-- 1411, Montreal, Canada.

....argumentation system IACAS [Vreeswijk, 1994] Like NAG, IACAS allows the user to add or remove information from its arguments. However, IACAS does not model attentional focus or tailor its arguments to the user. Several researchers have incorporated context into dialogue systems, e.g. J onsson, 1995] However, since these are often information providing systems, they use context mainly to further specify the user s requirements. In contrast, NAG uses the user s request and immediately preceding argument to determine the focus of attention, which in turn affects the argument generation ....

Jonsson, A. (1995). Dialogue actions for natural language interfaces. In IJCAI95 -- Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1405--1411, Montreal, Canada.

....stage in the conversation. 3. 1 Conversational Moves A variety of conversational moves and coherence relations have been proposed to explain the structure of discourse [10, 12] While useful, these moves are not sufficient for transaction oriented applications, especially with spoken interfaces [8]. While researchers acknowledge this fact, traditional moves may not even cover simple database access applications. The moves should be powerful enough to represent the dynamic properties of the underlying actions. For example, making an appointment requires that the user commit to the agreed ....

Arne Jonsson. Dialogue actions for natural language interfaces. In Proc. 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1405--1411, 1995.

.... Moves A variety of conversational moves and coherence relations have been proposed to explain the structure of discourse [9; 11] While useful, these moves are designed for human human and human machine communication, not for transaction oriented applications, especially with spoken interfaces [7]. While researchers acknowledge this fact, traditional moves may not even cover simple database access applications. The moves should be powerful enough to represent the dynamic properties of the underlying actions. For example, making an appointment requires that the user commit to the agreed ....

Arne Jonsson. Dialogue actions for natural language interfaces. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1405-- 1411, 1995.

....dialogue move engine) NUTEK HSFR Language Technology project F305 97. 1 There is a proliferation of names for this level of dialogue structure which perhaps is symptomatic of the lack of agreement between researchers. Apart from dialogue moves (Carlson [16] we have dialogue objects (Jonsson [26]) communicative actions (Allen [2] communicative acts (Allwood [5] and Traum[39] and the speech acts of Austin and Searle. Of course, there are also sometimes theoretical differences between many of these accounts. As noted, we will use the dialogue move terminology which is derived from ....

....developed for annotating information retrieval dialogues collected by means of WOZ experiments with several different simulated systems. The dialogues were conducted using written language. Unfortunately, no coding manual is available. The information below is taken from various sources ( 25] [26], 27] 7] 3.1.2 LINLIN: The schemas The first and simpler schema (LINLIN1) has only two basic moves , Initiative and Response, where initiatives introduce goals and responses satisfy goals. The second schema (LINLIN2) contains two different initiatives, Update (U) and Question (Q) Update ....

Arne Jonsson (1995): Dialogue Actions for Natural Language Interfaces. in Proceedings of IJCAI-95 , Montral, Canada, 1995.

.... be customized to account for the demands from each application [12] The focus structure also needs principles for how the values of the focal parameters Objects and Properties are specified 1 For some applications a third parameter, SecondaryObjects, is utilized to constrain the database search [13]. from information in the user initiative and the answer provided from the database. A move can fully specify both Objects and Properties. However, many utterances provide only partial specification of the focal parameters; context information is needed to fully specify them. Two principles ....

....specification of the focal parameters; context information is needed to fully specify them. Two principles account for focus maintenance. A general heuristic principle is that everything not changed in an utterance is copied from one IR node in the dialogue tree to the newly created IR node [13, 14]. Another principle is that the value for Objects will be updated with the value from the module accessing the database, if provided. The details of the copying principles need to be customized for each application to meet the demands of the background system and the focal content parameters ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Arne Jonsson. Dialogue actions for natural language interfaces. In Proceedings of IJCAI-95, Montr'eal, Canada, 1995.

No context found.

Arne Jonsson. Dialogue actions for natural language interfaces. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1405--1411, 1995.

No context found.

Jonsson, Arne (1995) Dialogue Actions for Natural Language Interfaces, in Proceedings of IJCAI95 , Montral, Canada.

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