P.R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M.E. Pollack, editors. Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....traiter ainsi que le degr d intensionnalisation, afin de dtecter des suites plus complexes. 14. Au sens de la connaissance, c est dire qu ils en ont une reprsentation symbolique. JFIADSMA 2001. D autre part, nous voudrions utiliser dans nos composants des lments des logiques comportementales [COH 90] et relier ce travail avec des outils classiques de raisonnement sur le fonctionnement afin de construire de vritables agents autonomes . Enfin, nous voudrions tendre ces travaux l analyse de flux interactionnels entre plusieurs groupes d agents (N vers N ) afin de faire merger des ....

COHEN P., LEVESQUE H., "Intentions in communication", Chapter Persistence, Intension and Commitment, p. 33-69, MIT Press, 1990.

....and institutional domains is widely acknowledged [29, 16, 11] However, a common view in most approaches is that of providing as many operators as di#erent speech acts are needed. Accordingly, there are operators to represent assertives, declarations, directives, commisives etc (see, e.g. [8]) We have argued for a di#erent perspective according to which it is su#cient to devise only one 14 minimal speech act operator. As a consequence, di#erentiating the speech acts depends on the specific nature of the argument in the scope of proc. For example, if an obligation occurs within the ....

P. Cohen and M. Pollack, eds., Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1990.

....between plans, negotiation between agents in the case of conflictual situations. These aspects have already been studied in numerous papers. In coordination, the use of communication is a part of planning and action. It concerns the development of MAS where speech acts are often involved [15, 16, 3, 4, 9]. The second aspect comes from the study of interactions which have been of continuing interest in multi agent planning [5, 8, 17, 11, 14, 7] This mainly focuses on how planning agents can positively cooperate in distributed environments. The last aspect has been studied in [17, 6, 2] The main ....

P.R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M.E. Pollack (editors). Intentions in communication. MIT Press, 1990.

.... 14 For an overview of BDI theories see the volume edited by O Hare and Jennings [1996] 15 Many of the important questions in this area were originally raised by philosophers [Harman, 1986; Davidson, 1989c; Bratman, 1987; Anscombe, 1963] they have since become of interest to many in AI as well [Cohen et al. 1990]. The suggestion that the relation between mental states and action is causal has, in fact, been disputed by some philosophers [Anscombe, 1963] 22 Rationality Postulate 11.1 (Intentions and beliefs) If an agent, i, intends some ff then the agent will not believe that ff will never be possible. ....

Cohen, Philip; Morgan, Jerry; and Pollack, Martha, editors 1990. Intentions in Communication. MIT Press.

....mechanisms and negotiation strategies require the ability to detect differences between an agent s plan and that of its collaborator. These mechanisms are rendered almost useless without this ability. However, plan recognition is one of the more difficult problems facing intelligent agents [18, 13, 4, 6, 1]. In domains where the agent has limited knowledge, mistakes in plan recognition will be common. Utterances that explicitly outline the plan an agent is taking can assist greatly in this process. Our research focuses on the announcement of certain goal failures. Suppose an agent insists on ....

P.R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M.E. Pollack, editors. Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1990.

.... of AI planning algorithm that stems from the (extremely interesting and powerful) work of (Fikes and Nilsson, 1971) My sole aim in this paper is to try to divert research effort from following up the approach suggested in (Cohen and Perrault, 1979; Allen and Perrault, 1980) and extended in e.g. (Cohen et al. 1990), in which the kinds of speech act introduced by (Austin, 1962) and (Searle, 1969) are embodied as STRIPS like operators and plugged into some more or less sophisticated planning system. In order to do this, I will show that a particular strand of research in this area introduces operators which ....

....countenance. Bunt, 1994) argues for a range of identifiable speech acts, on a par with declare above, which can be recognised unambiguously on the basis of the form of the utterance, and which have very constrained effects. One notable property of much of the work in the tradition exemplified by (Cohen et al. 1990) is that the basic semantics underlying the analysis is often very simple. If you fail to pick up all the information that is in fact available in an utterance, you will indeed have to do large amounts of very difficult inference in order to work out why someone produced it. If you are careful not ....

Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J., and Pollack, M. E. (1990). Intentions in Communication. Bradford Books, Cambridge, Mass.

....of things the users wanted to convey when interacting with the system. Were the users trying to retrieve information or were they merely interested in socializing with the animated agent The concept of communicative intention is a difficult one, both in human human and human computer interaction [6]. Categorizing of utterances always involves an arbitrary element, as one and the same utterance may express different communicative intentions depending on the context. Moreover, which and how many categories to use can be a problematic issue. It should be noted that natural language utterances ....

Cohen, P., Morgan, J. and Pollack, M. E. (eds.) (1990) Intentions in Communication. Cambridge: MIT Press

....how a well defined notion of nonmonotonic consequence can be used to calculate precisely the interactions between semantic content, causal knowledge and pragmatic maxims. However, we offer no implementation, and we largely ignore communicative goals and intentions (cf. Grosz and Sidner 1986, Cohen, Morgan and Pollack 1991). 3 The Basic Story A logic will be suitable for calculating temporal interpretation only if it supports all the patterns of inference we need to calculate temporal and rhetorical relations. These inferences are listed below; we motivate each one by a particular example. For simplicity, most of ....

Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J. and Pollack, M. E. [1991] (eds.) Intentions in Communication, mit Press, Cambridge Massachusetts usa.

.... There has been a great deal of work following up this suggestion, both for general reasoning about knowledge, belief and action (e.g. Moore, 1984) and for reasoning about knowledge and belief in the context of various kinds of linguistic action (e.g. Appelt, 1985; Cohen and Levesque, 1980; Cohen et al. 1990)) I am not keen on this approach. In particular, the fact that any semantics for any modal notion requires the sets of sentences to which one has a particular attitude to be complete and consistent undermines the applicability of such notions to belief. Belief sets are never complete and are ....

Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J., and Pollack, M. E. (1990). Intentions in Communication. Bradford Books, Cambridge, Mass.

....intentions and goals. We present argumentation as an iterative process of exchanges among agents to persuade each other and bring about a change in intentions. Our work on the formal mental model overlaps with the work of others who have developed formal models for communicative agents (e.g. [16,164,138,69,129,115,64,19,86,133]) and for mental models of agents (e.g. 75,162,152] We will discuss related work in Section 5 and point out the differences of our work with respect to that of others. The main difference from previous work is that we have developed our formalization from the argumentation point of view. We ....

P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack (editors). Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, 1990.

....to be able to read them. A: Even if you set the protections, the system manager can override them. In these examples, the plan ascription is made through the inference of the agents beliefs and intentions. As epistemic operators (describing the agents mental states) we ve de ned the following ([1, 3]) INT(a, agent a intends to do BEL(a, p) agent a beliefs that p is true ACH(a, p) agent a beliefs p will be true as a consequence of its actions EXP(a, p) BEL(a, p) or ACH(a, p) More complex actions can be constructed from the operators TO e BY : TO( p) the plan of performing ....

P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack. Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.

.... A: She s already been discharged. Her home number is 555 8321. Accordingly with Pollack s approach, the plan ascription is made through the inference of the agents beliefs and intentions. As epistemic operators (describing the agents mental states) there are de ned the following operators ([1, 2]) INT(a, agent a intends to do BEL(a, p) agent a beliefs that p is true ACH(a, p) agent a beliefs p will be true as a consequence of its actions EXP(a, p) BEL(a, p) or ACH(a, p) More complex actions can be constructed from the operators TO and BY : TO( p) the plan of performing ....

P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack. Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.

.... the kind of AI planning algorithm that stems from the (extremely interesting and powerful) work of Fikes and Nilsson (1971) My sole aim in this chapter is to try to divert research effort from following up the approach suggested in Cohen and Perrault (1979) Allen (1980) and extended in e.g. Cohen, Morgan, and Pollack (1990), in which the kinds of speech act introduced by Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) are embodied as STRIPS like operators 113 114 Speech act theory and epistemic planning and plugged into some more or less sophisticated planning system. In order to do this, I will show that a particular strand of ....

....countenance. Bunt (1994) argues for a range of identifiable speech acts, on a par with DECLARE above, which can be recognised unambiguously on the basis of the form of the utterance, and which have very constrained effects. One notable property of much of the work in the tradition exemplified by Cohen, Morgan, and Pollack (1990) is that the basic semantics underlying the analysis is often very simple. If you fail to pick up all the information that is in fact available in an utterance, you will indeed have to do large amounts of very difficult inference in order to work out why someone produced it. If you are careful not ....

Cohen, P. R., J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack (1990). Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA.

.... The thesaurus is used to expand queries to include all the values that are equivalent or more speci c or related, with the initial query (more information can be found in [9] 2 3 User attitudes In order to be cooperative our system needs to model user attitudes (intentions and beliefs) [3]. This task is achieved through the use of a logic programming framework that allows non monotonic reasoning (well founded semantics of extended logic programs with explicit negation, WFSX, from the work of Pereira et al. 2] In this framework the system mental state is represented by an ....

P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack. Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.

....of(X; Y ) holds at(on hand(X; Y ) E) holds at(free(Y ) E) initiates(E; on(X; Y ) act(E; move to top of(X; Y ) holds at(on hand(X; Y ) E) holds at(free(Y ) E) 5. EPISTEMIC OPERATORS As epistemic operators needed to describe the agents mental state, we have de ned the following [2, 4]: 1. int(a, agent a wants action to be done 2. bel(a, p) agent a believes that p is currently true 3. ach(a, p) agent a believes p will be true as a consequence of the actions of some agent (including its own actions) 4. exp(a, p) bel(a, p) or ach(a, p) agent a expects the uent p to ....

P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack. Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.

....speech acts observed in the earlier literature from general properties of actions, instead of stipulating illocutionary acts as primitives: Utterance events are . just a special case [of events] in which what is changed is the mental states of speakers and hearers. From the introduction to [Cohen et al. 1990] , p.8. Hence, part of the task of those engaged in this line of research is to develop a model of actions from which the general properties of conversations may be derived. For the purposes of this paper, the relevant aspect of the models of action proposed in this literature is that the ....

Cohen, P. R.; Morgan, J.; and Pollack, M., editors 1990. Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

.... eh A1 A2 A3 An B1 B2 B3 Bn Figure 1: Two person Dialogue 1 The BDI tradition Insofar as the current literature on computational models of dialogue has a received wisdom on the answers to these questions, it is probably that given by the BDI model of rational agency, as described for example in Cohen, Morgan, and Pollack (1990). The answer to the first question is that mental states are, or can be modelled as, sets of sentences in some logic, expressing the Beliefs, Desires, and Intentions of an agent (see Cohen and Levesque (1990) Various axioms connect the having of desires and intentions with the performance of ....

In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in Communication. MIT Press. Cohen, P., J. Morgan, and M. Pollack (1990). Intentions in Communication.

.... introduction to Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) a theory of context developed in formal semantics that embodies the traditional basics of the reference resolution tra 1 See, e.g. Kamp and Reyle, 1993] for the details of a semantic treatment of anaphoric reference, and the papers in [Cohen et al. 1990] for theories about the effect of speech acts on the mental state of agents. dition; we take a version of this theory as starting point for our formalization. In Section 3 we review the arguments for assuming that the common ground includes pragmatic as well as semantic information, and we ....

.... ACTS) whose occurrence is recorded by both participants as formulated, for example, in Austinand Searle s influential work [Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969] has been the basis of most work on context in AI [Cohen and Perrault, 1979; Allen and Perrault, 1980; Grosz and Sidner, 1986;Carberry, 1990; Cohen et al. 1990] In this work, speech acts are seen as actions capable of modifying the mental state of the participants in a conversation; theories of intention recognition such as those proposed by Allen, Carberry, Cohen, Levesque, Perrault, and others in the works mentioned are formulated as theories of ....

P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack, editors. Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.

....to predict follow up dialogue acts. As an application example we show how it supports repair when unexpected dialogue states occur. 1 Introduction Extracting and processing communicative intentions behind natural language utterances plays an important role in natural language systems (see e.g. Cohen et al. 1990, Hinkelman and Spackman, 1994 ] Within the speech to speech translation system verbmobil [ Wahlster, 1993, Kay et al. 1994 ] dialogue acts are used as the basis for the treatment of intentions in dialogues. The representation of intentions in the verbmobil system serves two main purposes: ....

Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan, and Martha E. Pollack, editors. Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.

....Communication Agent and Conversation Management Coordination Knowledge Acquisition and Debugging Figure 3: COOL Architecture. on endowing KQML with formal semantics based on the speech act theory as formalized and extended within the fields of Computational Linguistics and Artificial Intelligence [14]. The third level is concerned with the conventions that agents follow when interacting by exchanging messages. The existence of shared conventions makes it possible for agents to coordinate in complex ways, e.g. by carrying out negotiations [54, 56] about their goals and actions. Many such ....

P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, M. Pollack (editors). Intentions in Communication, MIT Press Cambridge, MA. 1990.

.... various types of conflicts, including resolving conflicting goals between non fully cooperative agents (Sycara 1989) resolving conflicts in resource allocation among cooperative agents (Conry, Meyer, Lesser 1988) resolving conflicts between coordinating subproblems in distributed problem solving (Klein 1991; Lander Lesser 1992) maintaining consistency among beliefs of computational agents (Huhns Bridgeland 1991) etc. In addition, Rosenschein and Zlotkin (1994) proposed a general theory characterizing the relationship between domains and appropriate negotiation mechanisms. These research ....

In Cohen; Morgan; and Pollack., eds., Intentions in Communication. MIT Press. chapter 20, 417--444. Huhns, M. N., and Bridgeland, D. M. 1991. Multiagent truth maintenance. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 21(6):1437--1445.

....through mouse movements as gestures, manipulations or menu selections. Above this there is the CMR which is common to all modes expressing the logical context of communication actions. Thirdly there is a higher level of abstraction used to plan communication in terms of communication forces (Cohen et al., 1990). At this level, communications acts are labelled as providing such things as apologies, problem reports, justifications, or requests. These follow the philosophy of communication acts which are common to intentions that can be expressed in any mode proposed by Maybury (1991) following the notion ....

....context for all objects. MMI 2 contains a Context Expert which stores all objects referred to in the CMR representations of the dialogue which pass between the mode layer and the Dialogue Controller and it provides the Dialogue Controller with candidates to resolve diexis and anaphora (e.g. Cohen et al., 1990). Therefore each mode can refer to objects mentioned in other modes where the references will be resolved by the Context Expert as illustrated in Table 2. For example, the user can combine text input and mouse pointing (e.g. Is using thin cable possible in mouse select this shaft ) and the ....

Cohen, P.R., Morgan, J. and Pollack, M.E. (1990) Intentions in Communication. MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.

....dialogue 1, when A gives the first step in directing IE out of Kyoto Station (go up that set of stairs) CC is go(id2,ag1,ks,outks) get out of Kyoto Station ) which is not mentioned in the context before. On the other hand, this is not NewInfo either, since it is not realised, but inferrable (Prince, 1979): expansion of the goal has resulted in the NewInfo go(id3,ag1,shintracks,upstairs) which is realised in the utterance, and from which CC is to be inferred. Conversely, old information need not be CC. For instance, before instructing IE to go up the stairs, A has introduced the stairwell and ....

In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack, eds., Intentions in Communication, pp. 271--311. MIT Press. E. Prince. 1979. On the given/new distinction. CLS, 15.

....activities. Psychological studies of skill acquisition frequently point towards a model in which practice at a task leads to the development of specialised mechanisms, specifically tailored for performing the task in question. Such mechanisms have been posited in many different domains. For instance, Reason (1979) suggested that everyday tasks like driving and cooking are carried out by a system of motor programs, operating with a certain degree of autonomy. Models of linguistic processing also commonly involve sets of specialised constructs evolving during the course of practice: pdp models are a case in ....

....(1989, 1993) A conception of relations as planning operators is not only useful from the standpoint of implementation, however. Since the advent of speech act theory (Austin (1962) Searle (1969) an active research programme has grown up around plan based approaches to pragmatics see for instance Cohen and Perrault (1979), Cohen and Levesque (1990) Allen (1995) And if utterances are best thought of as actions intended to achieve particular effects, then it makes sense to think of pairs of adjacent utterances in the same way. CHAPTER 5. PRELIMINARIES FOR DEFINING A SET OF RELATIONS 94 5.3.2 The Primitives to ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication, pages 221--256. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Cohen, P. and Perrault, C. (1979). Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts.

....and reasoning process. cooperativity: each agent communicates only the subjects which are relevant in a specific phase of the reasoning process (see the sufficiency rule in Kass, 1991) sincere assertion: let Comm (a i x) be a communicative act of a i ; if Comm (a i x) then (Bel a i x) (Cohen, Morgan Pollack, 1992); confidence: if Comm (a i x) then Bel a h Bel a i x; if (Model ( a h ) Bel a h x) then Bel a h x; a h comes to believe a communicated belief x as long as the a h s believing x is consistent with its other beliefs. multiple interpretation, single choice: all potential causes for a conflict ....

Cohen P.R., Morgan J. and Pollack M. eds. (1992). Intentions in communication, MIT Press.

....a logic with beliefs, goals, and intentions [54] Among the more influential work is that Cohen and Levesque [16, 15, 17] They have proposed a logic that defines intentions in terms of goals and beliefs. Their proposal has generated some discussion and debate, some of which can be found in [18]. 5.4 Obligation The notion of obligation has scarcely been studied in AI. See work by McCarty [45] and Boutilier [6] for early examples of work formalizing ought . Quite recently, Pearl has proposed a formalization of conditional obligations [51] 6 Final comments In this final section, we ....

P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack, editors. Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, 1990.

....limitation of the model is that, although it permits reasoning about the knowledge or beliefs of interlocutors, it neglects their goals and intentions to do actions. id does not deal with the phenomena which motivate the work following Cohen and Perrault [1979] and Allen and Perrault [1980] cf. Cohen, Morgan and Pollack [1990]) In particular, id does not let S take into account those inferences H will make in attempting to ascribe a plan to S. Hobbs et al. [1990:44 45] argue that inferences leading to plan recognition are less significant in interpreting long written texts or monologues. Hence, it might be argued ....

Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J. & Pollack, M. E. [1990] Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: mit press.

.... how do utterances connect with them and change them The BDI tradition Insofar as the current literature on computational models of dialogue has a received wisdom on the answers to these questions, it is probably that given by the BDI model of rational agency, as described for example in [CMP90] The answer to the first question is that mental states are, or can be modelled as, sets of sentences in some logic, expressing the Beliefs, Desires, and Intentions of an agent (see [CL90] Various axioms connect the having of desires and intentions with the performance of actions, some of ....

P.R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M.E. Pollack. Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, 1990.

....describing agents and theories describing systems of agents. The former proposes models for the internal representations that agents use to model the external world as well as their beliefs and goals. The system theories focuses on modeling the external appearance of agents as intentional systems [28, 27, 24] and provide models of agent cooperation and communication. The line is blurred between the two types of models because agents sometime contain representations of the intentions of other agents in the system. 2.1 Agent Theories Theories for modeling intelligent agents are aimed at describing the ....

P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack, editors. Intentions in Communication. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1990.

....it assumes a master slave relationship between agents (Grosz and Sidner, 1990) and that the inferring agent has complete and accurate knowledge of domain actions. In addition, like many earlier systems, it relies upon a set of heuristics to control the application of plan inference rules. In contrast, Kautz (1987; 1990) presented a theoretical formalization of the plan recognition problem, This research has been supported by U S WEST Advanced Technologies and by a Bellcore Graduate Fellowship. and a corresponding algorithm, in which the only conclusions that are drawn are those that are absolutely ....

In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J. L., and Pollack, M. E., editors, Intentions in Communication, pages 417--444. MIT Press. Jaffar, J. and Lassez, J.-L. 1987. Constraint logic programming. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Symposium on the Principles of Programming Languages, pages 111--119, Munich.

....then be used by the System to accept the act s first effect i.e. the belief that the System does not have permission to switch off the computer to achieve the state: bel(System, not(permission(System, switch(System, computer off) which directly achieves the Expert s ascribed No goal. 1. See [Cohen et al. 1990] for representative sample of such approaches. Given the System s assumption of rationality on the part of the Expert, there must be some ulterior reason why the Expert choose the recognised plan over this optimal plan. If the criterion of relevance is assumed to have been fulfilled, then it ....

Cohen, P., Morgan, J., and Pollack, M. (1990). Intentions in Communication. Bradford/MIT press, Cambridge, Mass.

No context found.

P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack, editors. Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.

No context found.

Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1990.

No context found.

P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan and M. E. Pollack (1990): Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

No context found.

Cohen, Philip R.; Morgan, Jerry; and Pollack, Martha E. (editors) . Intentions in communication. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 1990.

No context found.

Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in Communication. MIT Press. McRoy, S. (1995). Misunderstanding and the negotiation of meaning using abduction. Knowledged-Based Systems 8 (2--3), 126--134.

No context found.

P.R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M.E. Pollack, editors. Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.

No context found.

P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack. Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.

No context found.

Cohen, P.R., J. Morgan and M.E. Pollack, Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.

No context found.

Cohen, P.R., Morgan, J., and Pollack, M.E. (eds.) , Intentions in Communication , 1988.

No context found.

J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1990.

No context found.

Cohen, Philip R., Jerry Morgan, and Martha E. Pollack, editors. 1990. Intentions in Communication. SDF Benchmark Series, edited byPhilip R. Cohen and Jerry Morgan and Martha E. Pollack. MIT Press.

No context found.

Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication. MIT Press. Discourse Resource Initiative. 1997. Standards for dialogue coding in natural language processing.

No context found.

Morgan, and Martha E. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication. Bradford Books, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pages 77--103. Quilici, Alex, Michael Dyer, and Margot Flowers. 1988. Recognizing and responding to plan-oriented misconceptions. Computational Linguistics, 14(3):38--51.

No context found.

Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan, and Martha E. Pollack, editors. Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, 1990.

No context found.

P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, M. Pollack (editors). Intentions in Communication, MIT Press Cambridge, MA. 1990.

No context found.

In: P. Cohen et al. (eds.), Intentions in communication, 271-311, MIT Press Shneiderman, B., 1987, Designing the user interface - strategies for effective human-computer interaction, Second edition, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.

No context found.

Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan, and Martha E. Pollack (editors) (1990), Intentions in communication (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).

No context found.

In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J. L., and Pollack, M. E., editors, Intentions in Communication, pages 78--104. MIT Press. Sidner, C. L. and Israel, D. J. 1981. Recognizing intended meaning and speakers' plans. In Proceedings of IJCAI-81, pages 203--208.

No context found.

Morgan and M. E. Pollack, Intentions in communication, MIT Press , Cambridge, Mass., pages 105 -- 133. Kay, Judy. 1994. "Lies, Damned Lies and Stereotypes", 4th International Conference on User Modeling, Hyannis: ACM.

First 50 documents  Next 50

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