Applying the Act-Function-Phase Model to Aviation Documentation

航空

游客，如果您要查看本帖隐藏内容请回复

航空

Applying the Act-Function-Phase Model
to Aviation Documentation
David G. Novick
EURISCO
4 avenue Edouard Belin
31400 Toulouse, France
+33(0)562 173838
novickQonecert.fr
ABSTRACT
The act-function-phase model systematically relates the acts of
the dialogue at time-of-use to the acts of the dialogue between
author and users at time-of-development. We show how this
kind of model of communicative action can be applied to the
interactions described and embodied in a flight crew operating
manual for a commercial aircraft. We claim that the model’s
abstraction provides basis for co-evolutionary design of
procedures and their corresponding documentation.
Keywords
Dialogue acts, aircraft procedures
1. INTRODUCTION
This research, in its broadest terms, aims at improving the
methodology of system development so that issues of
documentation are not pushed to the end of the development
cycle, where the documentation may end up having to address
issues unresolved during earlier phases of development. We
developed the act-function-phase (AFP) model of interaction to
aid authors of documentation by providing (1) a way of
reasoning formally about the effectiveness of procedures or
instructions, and (2) an explicit representation of what the user
is doing in a way that makes it possible to create heuristics or
even formal rules that connect content and expression. The
model is based on concepts from the fields of the human-
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies
are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage, and that
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy
otherwise. to republish, to post on servers. or to redistribute to lists.
requires prior .s&ic pem&.sion and/or a.fee
01998 ACM 1-58113-00&W9WOOO9 $5.00
Said Tazi
Laboratory for Information Science
University of Toulouse 1
31042 Toulouse Cedex, France
+33(0)561 633564
tazi Q univ-tlsel .fr
computer-interaction and computational dialogue. Our goal in
this paper is to show how this new theory of documentation
development could eventually be applied in practice to
documentation, particularly for safety-critical systems.
An emerging research community has been looking at building
documentation more or less automatically, typically from
formal specifications of the underlying system. A number of
prototype systems have been created that automatically praluce
documentation in English or other languages that reflect a
formal, abstract representation of the system or its interface
[e.g., 5, 6, 8, 91. This approach is particularly appropriate for
safety-critical systems and large documents subject to revision.
The work reported here extends this line of research. The AFP
model is a formal representation for contextualized interaction
through an interface. The model is distinctive in that it
accounts explicitly for contexts at both time-of-use and timeof-
understanding. An introduction to the discourse theory
underlying the AFP model is presented in [4]. In this paper, we
show the model’s application to the domain of commercial
aviation as part of an on-going project to study how to account
for cockpit procedures during development of systems and their
documentation for future Airbus aircraft. In particular, we are
studying the flight crew operating manual (FCOM), the
principal aircraft documentation furnished to the flightcrew by
the aircraft builder and/or the airline. Use of the model is
intended to improve the preparation and content of procedures
in FCOMs for future aircraft.
This paper will briefly introduce the model and present an
example of its application to an FCOM procedure for using the
navigation interface for an Airbus A340 aircraft. The example
will demonstraE explicit representation of both domain and
meta acts across contexts of use, thus providing a basis for
linking the contexts at design time. We thus claim that the
model’s abstraction provides basis for co-redesign of procedures
and their corresponding documentation.
2. THE MODEL
In this aviation setting, the act-function-phase model of
interaction represents and relates differences in (1) the
dialogues among the crew and a&aft on the flight-deck to
243
(2) the dialogues between the author(s) of the flight crew
operating manual (FCOM) and its users. The model has three
components: acts, functions and phases.
Our presentation of the model’s components will use some
established terms from area of dialogue models and will define
a couple of new terms for extending these models to
documentation. Here are our definitions of a number of terms
from the literature that should help to make the model clearer:
An agent is something that has beliefs, processes
information and can achieve goals by interacting with other
agents. In the cockpit environment, agents include the
members of the crew and the aircraft itself.
An act is something performed by an agent, either the user
or the system, that has meaning for the recipient of the act.
A domain act involves doing something that involves the
agent’s main goals, like flying an aircraft. So the word
“domain” here means areas of real-world knowledge, goals
and accomplishment.
A meta act involves doing something that involves the
interaction itself rather than the agent’s real-world, domain
goals. Asking someone to speak more loudly is a typical
meta act. The word “meta” here means about or relating to
the interaction rather than to the underlying tasks.
A function is something’s “job” (i.e., goal-directed
activity). For example, a function of documentation is to
help users operate the documented system.
L. 1. Acts
The first component consists of dialogue acts, which are an
abstract way of characterizing interaction. Dialogue acts are an
extension of the well-known speech-acmt odel of conversation
[1,7], that combine both domain acts and meta acts [2, 3, lo].
The speech-act model captures what people “do” or achieve
when they say something. The model applies this notion of
communicative action for humans and systems to general
dialogue interaction, which is viewed as a multi-layered
composition that contains both the domain acts that
accomplish things in the world of the parties’ nominal goals
and the meta acts that accomplish things in the sphere of the
communication itself.
2.2. Functions
The second component consists of the task functions intended
to he achieved through the system and its documentation in the
FCOM. Broadly speaking, parts of the FCOM present
information about the system; these can be viewed as
constituting a function of description. Complementary parts of
the FCOM present action-oriented material such as procedures
and checklists; these can be viewed as constituting the
manual’s function of prescription.
2.3. Phases
The tbird component consists of the contexts of use. Viewing
the development and use of the FCOM as interactive processes
suggests that there are actually two distinct phases, with two
corresponding kinds of use:
1. A dialogue between system and its users, specified by the
aircraft designer. We calI this the operational phase.
2. A dialogue between the documentation and the users,
created by the documentation author. We call this the
referential phase.
In the operational dialogue, the acts are generally (but not
exclusively) domain acts among agents in the flightdeck. The
term agent is used in sense that elements of the aircraft
(especially its interfaces) and all members of the crew have
defined roles, responsibilities and capabilities. Thus the
dialogues designed for the operational phase may also be
among the users. As a typical example, an airline’s FCOM for
the Airbus A320 specifies a procedure for Flight Plan
Completion in which key elements are carried out solely by
the crew rather than through an action in the interface to the
aircraft; in this case, the crew compares (a) flight-plan
information from the interface with (b) clearance information
received from air-&& control.
In the referential dialogue, the acts are generally (but not
exclusively) meta acts from the documentation to the users.
The design of the understanding dialogue for the FCOM is an
especially difficult task because the set of intended users of the
manual is not homogeneous. Foreseeable users include not
only flightcrew but trainers, future designers and engineers,
future authors, and regulators (i.e., for certification). Each of
these users has a distinct background, set of goals and way of
using the documentation.
3. APPLICATION
Having introduced the AFP model generally, we now turn to
application of the model to a specific instance of
documentation, demonstrating that relevant features of the
documentation can be mapped onto the model’s key concepts.
3.1. Example
Figure 1 presents an excerpt of the procedure for navigating an
Airbus A340 into a holding pattern during the descent phase of
a flight. This procedure is part of the FCOM chapter of
proceduresf or the Flight Management System (FMS). The
interface to the FMS is called the Multipurpose Control and
Display Unit (MCDU). To interpret Figure 1 it is important to
understand that the flightcrew read information, enter data, snd
push buttons to perform commands on the MCDU; some of
these actions can modify the current flight plan.
244
(HOLDING PATTERN I
Refer to “HOW TO USE” for details.
PROCEDURE
El
F-PLN key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEPRESS
. LATERAL revision page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
SELECT
l HOLD prompt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
l HOLDING data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHECK / MODIFY
l TMPY F-PLN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHECK / INSERT
Figure I. Excerpt of FMGS Procedure for Holding Pattern
Applying the AFP model to the initial actions of the holding- (7) choose-display&J,S , lateral-revision(fix0))
pattern procedure and its documentation, it is important to note
first that the procedure itself consists mainly of domain acts
carrying out a prescriptive function in the operational phase. In
particular, the actions presented in the procedure can be
abstracted into acts as follows:
Depressing the “F-PLN” key causes the flight-plan page
to appear on the MCDU. Among other things, this page
presents tbe list of navigation “fixes” that compose the flight
plan. This action can be viewed as a set of combined
operational-phasea cts:
(1) comrnand(U, S, offer-choice(S. U, fixes@)))
(2) choose-display(U, S, flight-plan)
where U is the user, S is the system, and Fs a list of fixes. Act
1 is a domain act and Act 2 is a meta act. Together, they lead
to the domain and meta responses:
(3) offer-choice(S, U, fixes(E))
(4) present-display(S, U, flight-plan).
Moreover, the documentation of the action can be seen as a
referential-phase act that can be linked to Acts 1 and 2:
(5) inform(S, U, proc-action@epress-F-PLN key))
in the context of the holding pattern procedure.
Selecting the lateral revision page is performed
relative to one of the fmes shown on the F-PLN page. This
causes the MCDU to present what is essentially a dialogue box
for changing the current flight plan at the selected fix. This
action, for a fix F, can be viewed as a set of combined
operational-phasea cts:
(6) select(U. S, fix(F))
where Act 6 is a domain act and Act 7 is a meta act. Together,
they lead to domain and meta responses involving a set of
action types As.:
(8) offer-choice(S, U, actions-types-for(fix(F),
action-types(W))
(9) presentJisplay(S, U, lateral-revision(fix(F))
Selecting the hold prompt causes the system to
understand that the kind of navigation function to be
undertaken relative to the fix will be a hold. Note that this does
not cause the hold to happen but simply says that when the
modified flight plan is activated there will be a hold associated
with this fix. This action can be viewed as an operationalphase
domain act:
(10) select(U, S, actionJype(hold-at))
that results in the following system acts:
(11) S shows data for hold at fix F
(12) S offers choice of actions(revise, do or cancel)
The succeeding actions in the procedure give rise to further,
similarly expressed, acts.
Note that this prooedure as presented in the FCOM also
contains some clear referential-phase me&acts such as the
titling convention for the procedure’s name, the use of the label
‘procedure,” and the icon for the F-PLN key. When modeled
formally in the analyses reported below, the meta-referential
acts typically require notation that marks parts of the
presentation of the procedure. For example, the holding-pattern
procedute involves generating tokens to denote the limits of
the procedure:
245
mark(S, tO07, procedure):
Marked with title and formatting
<t007>
command&J, S, offer-choice(S, U, fixes@)))
(rest of procedure omitted)
</t007>
Similar tokens mark other me&referential elements such as
the denotation of “F-PLN” as a key by surrounding it with a
box.
Here, then, is a complete AFP representation of an airline’s
FCOM for a procedure for completing entry of preflight
information on winds through the interface to the FMGS. The
specific meaning of the procedure is not particularly interesting
or relevant here. The phases and functions are noted in the lefthand
columns (for example, RM means referential-meta and
OD means operational-domain), interface fields are denoted by a
leading question-mark (e.g., ?site), and variables are denoted by
lower-case italic characters (e.g., w), and a variable’s class is
denoted by an expression following a colon.
RM
RD OD
OM
OD
RM
RD OD
OD
OM
OD
mark(S, tO06, procedure):
Marked with formatting
<t006>
if(not(check(U, tropo, ?standard))
then(modify(U, tropo, ?site))
command(U, S, display(S, U,
page(history-wind)))
inform(U, S, wind(w:flt-lvl(f),
windspeed(m
mark(S, tOO6ae, xplanation)
Marked with indented formatting
ct006a>
enter&J, wind(w: { cruise wind from afpam)),
scratchqad)
enter&J, wind(w), field-for(fltJvl(f))
inform(S, U, causes(enter(Uw, ind(w),
field-for(fltJvl(f))), effects( (entitle(S,
page0listory_wind), wind))))
command(U, S, use(wind(w), page(wind)))
</t006a>
</t006>
This example is representative of the procedures we analand
shows how acts in both functions and both phases ate
interleaved to produce the documentation. Some prooedures
were much longer.
Use of AFP along these lines should aid authors of
documentation in a number of ways. First, the predicate
representation of acts makes possible formal reasoning about
the effectiveness of the procedures. If suitable initial and final
conditions were formulated, it should be possible to show that
a documented procedure does (or does not) connect them.
Second, the explicit representation of acts in terms of both
functions and phases makes possible connecting them through
heuristics or perhaps more formal rules that lead from content
to expression.
4. ANALYSIS
Using the AFP view, a detailed analysis was conducted, of
several FMGS procedures. In addition to determining the
practicality of applying the AFP view, the analysis sought to
determine typical acts, both domain and meta, and to provide a
basis for a rough estimate of the number of acts, relations ard
entities contained in the FMGS sections of the FCOM. The
analysis found acts and relations that were either dependenot r
independent of the domain, plus a large number of domain
entities.
In addition, an analysis was conducted of a sample of
differences observed between FCOMs of various airlines. This
analysis sought to characterize these differences in terms of the
AFP view, particularly with respect to act (domain or meta)
and phase (referential or operational) categories. The analysis
found consistent patterns of kinds of changes, as well as
patterns of act categories associated with each other in common
for single differences.
4.1. Analysis of extended section of FCOM
An extended AFP analysis was conducted for a ten-page sample
of the FMGS proceduresp resentedi n an airline’s FCOM for
the Airbus A320 aircraft. The sections analyzed, which present
FMGS procedures for flight-plan entry, were translated into
predicate expressions representing acts, entities, and domain
and abstract relations. As noted earlier, an act is something
performed by an agent, either the user or the system, that has
communicative value to the recipient of the act; acts are the
“verbs” of the representation. Entities are the “nouns” of the
representations. Relations am the “adjectives” of the
representation; they qualify or describe entities or relate acts
and entities to each other. A domain relation has meaning in
terms of the domain of the aircraft; it’s a relation that has
meaning that comes from the real world. An abstract relation
has meaning outside the domain; it’s a relation like “and’ or
“with” that could apply to any domain.
We found that both referential- and operational-phase acts were
expressed. Note that the acts, relations and entities were not
defined with formal semantics; they were treated as defined by
the commonsense meanings that arise out of their actual use in
the FCOM. In the case of some complex representations of
246
domain entities that were not central to the process of encoding
the acts, the analysis substituted bracketed comments in place
of predicates.
The analysis identified 20 acts in these sections of the airline’s
FCOM. Some of these acts are relatively generic, such as
command, do, inform, offer-choice, request, select and use.
Others are more domain-specific, such as arm, check, clear,
display, modify, and power-cycle. Some of the acts, such as
entitle and mark, are clearly meta in the referential phase.
Overall, the set of acts appears to be relatively stable, in that
progressively fewer and fewer new acts were added as the
analysis progressed to additional procedures, and most of this
growth involved domain-specific acts. This suggests that, at
the generic level, the interactions in the FCOM are capable of
being abstracted into a finite set of dialogue acts.
The analysis identified 53 domain entities. That is, these are
unary predicates that represent static domain concepts, such as
destination,jlightplan and procedure. As in the case of domaindependent
relations, it appears that the set of domain entities
will continue to grow as additional procedures are analyzed.
Again, to a large extent, this simply reflects the fact that
additional procedures relate to new kinds of system functions or
flight phases, thus introducing new domain entities such as
navaid or departure.
The analysis identified ten relations that appear to be relatively
domain-independent. That is, these are predicates of one or
more arguments that classify or relate other predicates in terms
that do not seem to be specifically tied to the FCOM domain.
Examples of domain-independent relations include rmd and
denotes. As was the case for the domain-independent acts, the
rate of growth of the number of domain-independent relations
fell as additional procedures were analyzed. This suggests that
the set of generic, abstract relations necessary for the AFP
view is likely to be stable.
The analysis also identified 42 relations that appear to be
domain dependent. That is, these are predicates of one or more
arguments that classify or relate other predicates in terms of
domain-related concepts. Examples of domain-dependent
relations include authorized, mode and speed. In contrast to the
domain-independent relations, it appears that the set of dornaindependent
relations will continue to grow as additional
procedures are analyzed. To a large extent, this simply reflects
the fact that additional procedures relate to new kinds of system
functions or flight phases.
As the notions of entity and relation were defined syntactically,
based on whether or not the predicate had arguments, the
distinction between the two should be regarded with caution.
This is not a serious issue for the purposes of the analysis,
however, as both domain-dependent relations and domain
entities produced basically identical results.
Overall, this suggests that, at least for the FMS sections of an
FCOM, there are likely to be roughly a dozen domainindependent
acts, thirty domain-dependent acts, a dozen domainindependent
relations, and several hundred domain-dependent
relations and domain entities.
4.2. Analysis of FCOM changes
In addition to the extended analysis of part of an individual
FCOM, as reported above, the project also examined 88
consecutive differences between A340 FCOMs of two airlines
and of Airbus Industrie in terms of the AFP view. The analysis
looked as two sections involving standard operating procedures,
totaling approximately 60 pages of material. Each observed
difference was analyzed using the AFP view, and classified in
terms of act (domain or meta) and phase (operational or
referential). The results are summarized in Table 1. The choice
of sections coded ensured that the analysis would
elements across functions (descriptive or prescriptive).
cover
Table 1. Distribution of acts and phases
The data reported in Table 1 suggest, not surprisingly, that
most of the changes in FCOMs involve domain acts in the
referential phase and meta acts in the operational phase. So, for
example, the deletion of a statement such as
The pilot’s view from the cockpit of the A340 during
approach and landing is particularly good. The cockpit
cut off angle is 20 degrees.
would be a domain-referential act because it refers explicitly to
domain knowledge, and a me&operational act because it does
not involve a change in the way that crews are supposed to
operate the aircraft. Less frequent are acts that are meta-acts in
the referential phase. These would be acts such as changing the
presentation style or organization of the FCOM. Even less
frequent are acts that are domain acts in the operational phase.
This seems logical, as changes to domain-operational acts
would be changes to the A34O’s actual procedures. For
example, Air France specifies exact wording to be us&l in
requests and announces for different cockpit-instrument
displays.
In fact, the four classes of acts am not independent Just as in
the analysis of the individual FMGS procedure discus& above
where a single action can constitute more than one kind of a&
so too can a single change affect more than one kind of act.
Accordingly, the project analyzed the relationships among the
classes of acts for the 88 FCOM changes previously classified.
The results of this analysis are presented in Table 2.
247
Tally 1 Act/Phase Classes
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . .1a9.. .........ii. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D . . . R. . . .- . M. . . . .O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .M . . . . R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ji . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. . . . R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M. . . . O. . . . -. .M . . . . R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii ..................D..o.. .................................
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D . . . O. . . . -. .M . . . . O. . . . -. .D . . . R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. . . .O . . . .- . D. . . . R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. . . . R. . . .- . M. . . . .R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M. . . . O. . . . -. . D. . . .R . . . -. .M . . . . R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 ; MO
Table 2. Distribution of act/phase dunes
As could be expected from the data in Table 1, by far the most
frequent pairing of act and phase classes was a domainreferential
act and a meta-operational act. In fact, this pairing
appears to occur more consistently than would be predicted
simply by random association of these two frequent categories,
indicating that the relationship is systematic. Aside from one
instance of a change that was classified MO-DR-MR, there
were no instances of act/phase class pairings along the other
diagonal of Table 1, even though the relative frequency of acts
in these classes might be expected to produce some pairs. In
point of fact, the absence of these pairings is entirely logical: a
substantive change in domain operations (DO) will have little
necessary association with a change in the presentation style
(MR) of the FCOM.
A relatively frequent kind of FCOM difference was the single
meta-act in the referential phase (MR). This classification
corresponds to a change in the presentation or organization of
the FCOM without an associated change in content.
5. DISCUSSION
The sections of FCOM we analyzed primarily presented
procedures rather than description of systems. For parts of
FCOMs that focus on descriptions, we expect that the mix of
kinds of acts would differ. In particular, there number of
operational-phasea cts should decline radically, and the number
of domain-referential acts should increase correspondingly. This
suggests that the trend seen in Table 1 should be even sharper,
as the potential for changes in domain-operational acts would
be further reduced.
The analysis has other limitations. In particular, we
concenti more on representation of the semantics of
procedures and less on the forms of expression. This focus can
be seen in our use of informal rather than predicate expressions
in our descriptions of formatting in our examples.
Domain and meta acts have different characteristics when used
to produce the operational and referential functions of dialogue.
Domain acts have a clear and systematic consistency across
both functions. That is, an operational domain act will
normally have a recognizable counterpart in the set of
referential domain acts. In contrast, meta acts of operational
dialogue and of referential dialogue are basically different. Meta
acts in operationald ialogue can be characterizeds imply on the
basis of the interface through which the crew and aimraft
communicate. Meta acts in referential dialogue, however,
depend on the tools used by authors and on the type of the
reader they are addressing. Thus one of our principal aims is to
analyze the relationships of information transmitted in the two
phases to develop a method that maps domain and, especially,
meta acts across the two functions.
The coincidence of changes across function and phase classes,
as reported in Table 2, is suggestive evidence for the existence
of the link we claim exists between the functions. That is, the
high incidence of FCOM revisions that involve DR-MO
changes means that ways of referring to things are associated
with instructions on how to do things. Also, the existence of
pairs such as MO-MR and DO-DR suggests links between
content and mode of expression. What these links are, in any
particular case, may simply reflect the authors’ style practices
but may also reflect more fundamental knowledge about
systems and documentation that could be captured in heuristic
form. To the extent that this is possible, whether for a specific
stylebook or more generally, the links between the phases hold
out the hope of aiding technical authors in building
documentation.
Our current work on the AFF’ model involves empirical
validation. This includes “concretizing” the model for a useful
section of the A34O’s FCOM, using the model to understand
reasons why airlines revised the FCOM in particular ways, and
obtaining feedback from pilots on whether the model expresses
concepts that are of use to them.
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by a research contract from
Aerospatiale Aeronautique. Airbus Industrie. Air France and
Lufthansa provided important assistance.
7. REFERENCES
1. Austin, I. (1962). How to do things with words.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2. Carbonell, J. G. (1982). Me&language utterances in
purposive discourse, Technical report CMU-CS-82-185,
Department of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon
University.
3. Novick, D. (1988). Control of mixed-initiative discourse
through meta-locutionary acts: A computational model.
Doctoral dissertation, available as Technical Report CIS-
248
TR-88-18, Department of Computer and Information
Science, University of Oregon
4. Novick, D., and Tazi, S. (1998). Plight crew operating
manuals as dialogue: The act-function-phase model.
Proceedings of HCLAero’98, Montreal, May, 1998, 179-
184.
5. Paris, C., and Hartley, A. (1996). Multilingual document
production from support for translating to support for
authoring. Information Technology Research Institute
Technical Report No. ITRI-96- 17.
6. Power, R., Scott, D., and Evans, R. What you see is what
you meant: Direct knowledge editing with natural language
feedback Information Technology Research Institute
Technical Report No. ITRI-97-03, 1997.
7. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
8. Thimbleby, H. (1996). Creating user manuals for use in
collaborative design, CHI 96 Conference Companion, 279-
280.
9. Thimbleby, H., and Ladkin, P. (1995). A proper
explanation when you need one. Proceedings of the BCS
Conference on Human Computer Interaction, Huddersfield,
UK. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
lO.Traum, D., and Hinkelman, E. (1992). Conversation acts
task-oriented spoken
ztelligence, S(3) , 575-599.
dialogue, Computational
249