David Schlangen : Home Page > 050508cont
- semantics of utterances: for prototype, treat all referring
expressions as *names*, i.e. with their semantics specified in the
lexicon?
- for pieces: expressions like "the cross". A bit of a stretch to
treat things like "the second on the left side in the
second row" as names. This can be translated into some sort of
coordinate, but would still need to be resolved -- that this
expression refers to piece3 can't be a fact of the lexicon.
- for locations: expressions like "the back of the elephant" refer
to a location, which can initially be represented by a single
coordinate. Then zooming-in process sets in (see below).
- how much intelligence does the non-ling-action executor have? What
does the Dialogue Manager communicate to it?
Let's assume the question was "where shall I move it?" (i.e.,
piece has been identified), and the answer "to the back of the
elephant" has been correctly understood. This instruction is
underspecified. How do we get to the right location? What does the
DM tell the "arm"? And what does the arm answer back?
- DM: `move (10,20)'
- Arm: done. closest legal position is (11,20). [i.e., arm knows
about legal positions, identifies these independently]
- DM: to TTS `here?'
- User: `yes'
- DM to arm `drop'
- for prototype: movements can be interrupted by user. `action
barge-in'
- for prototype: nothing can be removed?
- TO DOs parser:
- brain-stormed a bit. (On Tuesday.)
- keep structure of referring expressions around, even if for
now we treat them as names.
- HPSG-inspired? With HEAD, DTRS, SEM, RESTR features etc.
- but basis (for semantics) is the frame:
ACTION: move
AGENS: system (implicit)
PATIENS: piece
START_POS:
TARGET_POS:
features can be left unspecified, even when utterance is
complete.
- identified issues:
1. complex descriptions (see above). Keep internal structure
of descriptions, for latter (concurrent) processing by
other modules
2. also need semantics for interaction management utterances
like "yes", "no", "one up", "daneben", etc.
3. need info about (potential) completeness. Parser features
as used in Nigh experiments.
4. fragments / context ellipsis.
"Welches Teil soll ich jetzt nehmen?" "Das Kreuz"
should produce same semantics as "Nimm das Kreuz"? Or is
this contextual merge done in later module?
- TO DOs for ASR part:
- get partial results w/ n-gram model?
- get confidence scores out
- learn more about configurations
- get n-best lists / lattices
---> Friday, 1st International Sphinx Day
das, 05/08/08 10:21 (GMT)
Add a new page under this one
