Multidimensional dialogue act annotation using ISO 24617-2 Harry Bunt Tilburg University ISO 24617-2...

Multidimensional dialogue act annotation using ISO 24617-2

Harry BuntTilburg University

ISO 24617-2 Project Leader

IJCNLP 2011 tutorial, November 8, Chiang Mai

ISO Standard 24617-2 Semantic Annotation Framework, Part 2:

Dialogue Acts

ISO TC 37/SC 4

Project status

- Launched in May 2008- Accepted as International Standard ISO 24617-2, January

2011- Project team:

- Harry Bunt (Netherlands), Project Leader - Jan Alexandersson (Germany) - Jean Carletta (UK)- Alex Fang (China/HK)- Jae-Woong Choe (Korea)- Koiti Hasida (Japan)- Olga Petukhova (Netherlands)- Andrei Popescu-Belis (Switzerland)- Claudia Soria (Italy)- David Traum (USA)

Expert Consulting Group Current members: Jens Allwood Carlos Martinez-Hinarejos James Allen Marieke van Erp Thierry Declerck David Novick Nick Campbell Tim Paek Roberta Catizone Patrizia Paggio Anna Esposito Massimo Poesio Raquel Fernández German Rigau Gil Francopoulo Laurent Romary Dirk Heylen Nicla Rossini Julia Hirschberg Milan Rusko Kristiina Jokinen Candice Sidner Maciej Karpinski Ielka van der Sluis Staffan Larsson Pavel Smrz Oliver Lemon Krister Thorisson Paul Mc Kevitt Aesun Yoon Michael McTear Yorick Wilks

Outline of this tutorial

1 Introduction

2 Multifunctionality, multidimensionality and dimensions

3 Comunicative functions

4 Dialogue segmentation

5 Function qualifiers

6 Relations between units in dialogue

7 Annotation practice: examples of using DiAML, the ISO Dialogue Act Markup Language

8 Concluding remarks; further information

1.

Introduction

Introduction

Dialogue act: specimen of communicative activity of a dialogue participant, interpreted as having a certain communicative function and a semantic content.

Semantic content: specification of objects, relations, actions, propositions,... that the dialogue act is about.

Communicative function: specification of how the dialogue act's is intended to change the information state of an addressee.

Background

- Previous dialogue act annotation schemes: TRAINS, HCRC Map Task, Verbmobil, DIT, SPAAC, C-Star, MUMIN, MRDA, AMI,...

- Efforts towards domain-independence, interoperability and standardization: DAMSL (1997), MATE (1999), DIT++ (2005), LIRICS (2007)

Dialogue act analysis frameworks Speech Act Theory Communication as Cooperation (Grice)

(Austin, Searle) Communicative Activity Analysis (Allwood)

HCRC TRAINS MRDA … GBG-IM DIT

Verbmobil-2

DAMSL + der.

MATE DIT++

LIRICS

ISO 24617-2 (DIS) DIT++ Release 5

ISO standard for dialogue act annotation

Features:

♥ Domain-independent

♥ Concepts defined as data categories (following ISO 12620 standard) and stored in the ISOcat online registry

♥ Multidimensional

♥ Annotation language DiAML (Dialogue Act Markup Language) with:

abstract and concrete syntax semantics in terms of information-state update

operators defined for abstract syntax concrete syntax defining XML representations

2.

Multifunctionality, multidimensionality

and dimensions

Multifunctionality

A: Henry, could you take us through these slides?

H: O..w..k..ay.. just ordering my notes

Multifunctionality


Turn Assign to Henry; Request


Multifunctionality




Turn Accept; Stalling; Accept Request; Inform

Multifunctionality




Turn Accept; Stalling; Accept Request; Inform

Dimensions of communication in dialogue: Turn Management Time Management Task performance Feedback giving .....

Multifunctionality ==> Multidimensional annotation

Functional segments often have multiple functions

therefore

annotation must be “multidimensional” i.e. multiple tags must be assigned or single tags with a syntactic/semantic complexity

Dimensions, a conceptual view

Participants in a dialogue act in order to perform a certain task or activity



and they also provide and elicit feedback;



and they also provide and elicit feedback; manage the use of speaking turns and time;



and they also provide and elicit feedback; manage the use of speaking turns and time; edit their own and their partner's speech;



and they also provide and elicit feedback; manage the use of speaking turns and time; edit their own and their partner's speech; open and close topics and subdialogues;



and they also provide and elicit feedback; manage the use of speaking turns and time; edit their own and their partner's speech; open and close topics and subdialogues; deal with social obligations (greet, thank,

apologize...)



and they also provide and elicit feedback; manage the use of speaking turns and time; edit their own and their partner's speech; open and close topics and subdialogues; deal with social obligations (greet, thank,

apologize...)

These different kinds of communicative activity, concernedwith different information categories, are called dimensions.

Dimensions in dialogue act analysis

Criteria for distinguishing dimensions:

Each dimension should correspond to observed forms of communicative behaviour

(be empirically justified) correspond to a well-established class of communicative activities

(be theoretically justified) be recognizable with acceptable precision by humans and machines be addressable independent of other dimensions

(be ‘orthogonal' to other dimensions) be commonly represented in existing dialogue act annotation

schemes

(Petukhova & Bunt, 2009)

Dimensions in Dialogue

Task: dialogue acts moving the underlying task forward



Auto-Feedback: providing information about speaker's processing of previous utterances

Allo-Feedback: providing or eliciting information about addressee's processing of previous utterances





Turn Management: allocation of speaker role






Time Management: managing use of time







Discourse Structuring: explicitly structuring the dialogue








Own Communication Management: editing one's own speech

Partner Communication Man.: editing addressee's speech








Own Communication Management: editing one's own speech

Partner Communication Man.: editing addressee's speech

Social Obligations Management: dealing with social conventions

(greeting, thanking, apologizing,..)

3.

Communicative functions


Criteria for distinguishing communicative functions:

each communicative function should correspond to observed forms of communicative behaviour

(be empirically justified) have a well-established semantics in terms of information-state

updates (be theoretically justified) be recognizable with acceptable precision by humans and machines be important for achieving a good coverage of the phenomena in a

given dimension be commonly present in existing dialogue act annotation schemes preferably be either mutually exclusive with the other functions

available in a given dimension, or be a specialization of one

Communicative functions (taken from DIT++)

Dimension-specific communicative functions, e.g.: Turn Release (Turn Management) Stalling (Time Management) Self-Correction (Own Communication Management) Completion (Partner Communication Management) Dialogue opening (Discourse Structuring) Thanking (Social Obligations Management)

General-purpose functions, applicable in any dimension, e.g.: Information-seeking functions: Propositional Question, Set Question, Check

Question, Choice Question Information-providing functions: Inform, Agreement, Disagreement, Correction Commissive functions: Promise, Offer, Accept Suggestion, Decline Suggestion,... Directive functions: Request, Instruct, Suggestion, Accept Offer, Decline Offer

Dialogue act analysis frameworks Speech Act Theory Communication as Cooperation (Grice)

(Austin, Searle) Communicative Activity Analysis (Allwood)

HCRC TRAINS MRDA … GBG-IM DIT

Verbmobil-2

DAMSL + der.

MATE DIT++

LIRICS

ISO 24617-2 (DIS) DIT++ Release 5

General-purpose communicative functions

Information-transfer functions action-discussion functions



Info-seeking info-providing commissives directives



Info-seeking info-providing commissives directives

Offer Address Suggest Request Question Inform Suggest

Promise Instruct

Prop. Choice Q Set Q Disagreement Agreement Accept Decline

Question Answer Suggest Suggest

Address Request Address Offer

Check Confirm Disconfirm Correction Accept Decline

Question Accept Request Decline Request Offer Offer

Dimension-specific communicative functions in ISO 24617-2 and in DIT++

Auto- Allo- Contact Time Partner Turn Own Discourse Social

Feedback Feedback Speech Speech Structuring Obligations

Man. Management Managem.

Dimension-specific communicative functions in ISO 24617-2 and in DIT++

Auto- Allo- Contact Time Partner Turn Own Discourse Social

Feedback Feedback Speech Speech Structuring Obligations

Establish C. Man. Management Managem.

Check C. Opening

Positive Positive Stalling Completion Error signal Pre-closing I-Greeting

Pos. Attention Pos. Attention Pausing Correct- Retraction R-Greeting

Pos. Perception … misspeaking Self-correction I-Self-Introd.

… Negative R-Self-Introd.

Pos. Execution ,,, Apology

Negative Elicitation Accept-Apology

Neg. Attention … turn-initial turn-final Thanking

Neg. Perception Elic. Execution Accept-Thanking

Neg. Understanding I-Goodbye

Neg. Evaluation Turn Take Turn Keep R-Goodbye

Neg. Execution Turn Grab Turn Release

Turn Accept Turn Assign

Dimension-specific functions examples

Dimension Comm. Function Example Auto-feedback Auto-Positive “Okay”Allo-feedback EvaluationElicitation “Okay?”Turn management TurnRelease “Yes...”Time management Stalling “Ehm..”, “Well...” Own comm. man’t Self-correction “I mean...”Partner comm.man't Completion [... completion]Dialogue structuring DA-announcement “Question:” Social oblig. man’t Valediction “Bye”

General-purpose functions examples in different dimensions

Inform acts in various dimensions:

– The KL204 leaves at 12.30. Task



– The KL204 leaves at 12.30. Task– I see what you mean. Auto-feedback



– The KL204 leaves at 12.30. Task– I see what you mean. Auto-feedback– You misunderstood me. Allo-feedback



– The KL204 leaves at 12.30. Task– I see what you mean. Auto-feedback– You misunderstood me. Allo-feedback– I would like to hear Peter’s opinion. Turn management



– The KL204 leaves at 12.30. Task– I see what you mean. Auto-feedback– You misunderstood me. Allo-feedback– I would like to hear Peter’s opinion. Turn management– I need a moment to check that. Time management



– The KL204 leaves at 12.30. Task– I see what you mean. Auto-feedback– You misunderstood me. Allo-feedback– I would like to hear Peter’s opinion. Turn management– I need a moment to check that. Time management– I’m not sure you understood me correctly.

Partner communication management




Partner communication management– ... I mean Toronto. Own communication management




Partner communication management– ... I mean Toronto. Own communication management– I would like to ask you something. Discourse structuring




Partner communication management– ... I mean Toronto. Own communication management– I would like to ask you something. Discourse structuring– I’m very grateful for you help. Social obligations management


55 communicative functions- 25 general-purpose functions:

4 information-seeking functions

7 information-providing functions

8 commissive functions

6 directive functions

- 30 dimension-specific functions

2 auto-feedback functions

3 allo-feedback functions

6 turn management functions

2 time management functions

3 discourse structuring functions

2 own communication management functions

2 partner communication management functions

10 social obligation management functions


All communicative functions: have a definition as ISO data category, following ISO 12620 standard

for concept definitions will eventually be entered in ISOCat registry at http://www.isocat.org/ currently available at http://semantic-annotation.uvt.nl

Example of data category:

/acceptRequest

Definition

- Source

- Note

Example

Communicative function of a dialogue act where the speaker commits himself to perform an action requested by the addressee

DIT (http://dit.uvt.nl)

Related terminology in other schemes: Accept (DAMSL, TRAINS, Verbmobil)A: Could you take us through these slides Craig? C: Sure

http://dit.uvt.nl/

4.

Dialogue segmentation

Multidimensional segmentation

INFORM

Propositional QuestionPositive: A1

Set Question

Assign to C

Positive: B2Negative:A1

Propositional Question

Accept

A1: We’re aiming a fairly young market

Task

B1: Do you think then we should really consider voice recognitionTask

Auto-Feedback

B2: What do you think Craig

Task

Turn Man.'t

C1: Well did you not say it was the adults that we’re going for

Auto-Feedb.

Turn Man't

Full-blown characterization of dialogue acts

Full-blown characterization of dialogue act involves, besides communicative function and semantic content, also:

- Communicative function qualifiers:- certainty

- conditionality

- sentiment

- Relations between dialogue acts and other units in dialogue- Functional dependence relations

- Feedback relations

- Rhetorical relations- among dialogue acts

- among the semantic contents of dialogue acts

5.

Function qualifiers

Communicative function qualification

Dialogue acts do not always have simple communicative functions:

A: Do you know when and where the next meeting will be?

B: I think it's somewhere early in September.




conditional request:

“Please tell me … if you know”





conditional request:

“Please tell me … if you know”


uncertain answer (“I think ... somewhere...”)




conditional request: “please tell me … if you know”


uncertain answer (“I think... somewhere...”)

A: Would you like to have some tea?

B: That would be lovely!




conditional request: “please tell me … if you know”


uncertain answer (“I think... somewhere...”)

A: Would you like to have some tea? offer

B: That would be lovely! happy accept offer

Communicative function qualifiers

qualification aspect

qualifiers communicative function class

certainty uncertain,certain

information-providing functions

conditionality conditional,unconditional

action-discussion functions

sentiment [open class](happy, surprised, irritated,...)

all communicative functions

6.

Relations between dialogue acts and other units in dialogue

Relations within a dialogue

functional dependence relation: A dialogue act depends for its meaning on a previous dialogue act

feedback dependence relation: A feedback act depends for its

meaning on something that was previously said

rhetorical relation: a. the performance of a dialogue is semantically related to the performance of

another dialogue act

b. the semantic content of a dialogue act is semantically related to that of another dialogue act

Functional dependence relationsFunctional dependence on a previous dialogue act:

Answer → Question Accept Request → Request Disconfirmation → Check Question Decline Offer → Offer Accept Apology → Apology …..

Example:

Answer: B: I certainly expect Alice and Bob, and maybe Charlie

Functional dependence relationsFunctional dependence on a previous dialogue act:

Answer → Question Accept Request → Request Disconfirmation → Check Question Decline Offer → Offer Accept Apology → Apology …..

Example:

Answer: B: I certainly expect Alice and Bob, and maybe Charlie

Question:

1) A: Who do you expect at the meeting?

2) A: Which of the people from New York do you expect at the meeting?

Feedback dependence relations

A feedback act has a feedback dependence on something that was previously said

Example:

1. A: Is this flight also available on Tursday?

2. B: On Thursday you said? feedback dependence on 1

Dependence relations

A feedback act has a feedback dependence on something that was previously said

Example:

1. A: Is this flight also available on Tursday?

2. B: Yes, it's available on Thursday as well. functional dependence on 1

(2. B: On Thursday you said? feedback dependence on 1)

Rhetorical relations(Examples from the AMI corpus, participants discussing design of a remote control)

1. A: You keep losing them.

2. A: They easily slip behind or under the couch.



2. A: They easily slip behind or under the couch. Cause(content 2, content 1)





2. B: That’s because they don’t have a fixed location.





2. B: That’s because they don’t have a fixed location. Explain(content 2, content 1)






1. A: Where do you physically want to position the buttons?

2. A: I think that would have some impact on many things.






1. A: Where do you physically want to position the buttons?

2. A: I think that would have some impact on many things.

Motivate(dialogue act 2, dialogue act 1)

(7.)

A Methodology for designing semantic annotation schemes

ISO requirements for annotation standards

ISO Linguistic Annotation Framework (Ide & Romary, 2005):

• annotations: the linguistic information that is added to segments of language data, independent of the format in which the information is represented;

• representations: particular formats in which annotations are rendered, (e.g. in XML, in typed feature structure AVMs, or in graphs in graphical form) independent of their content.

Standards should be formulated at the level of annotations.

Annotation schema design methodology

1. Conceptual analysis. Inventory of categories of concepts and relations. “Metamodel”.

2. Specification of abstract syntax of annotation language. Formal specification of types of concepts and their combinations (“annotations”) in set-theoretical terms.

3. Specification of semantics for abstract syntax. Formal specification of how to compositionally compute the meanings of annotation structures.

4. Specification of concrete syntax. Definition of concrete, e.g. XML-based, renderings of annotations in some representation format (“representations”).

Annotation/representation distinction: abstract/concrete syntax

abstract syntax concrete syntax

semantics

Ideal Concrete Syntax

An ideal concrete syntax defines an ideal representation format:

1. For every annotation structure, defined by the abstract syntax, the concrete syntax defines a representation;

2. Every representation, defined by the concrete syntax, is the rendering of a unique annotation structure according to the abstract syntax.

Ideal concrete syntax

abstract syntaxideal concrete

syntax-1

semantics

F1

F1

-1

Ia

ideal concretesyntax-2

F2

-1

F2

C12

C21

DiAML abstract syntax

Conceptually, an annotation structure is a set of entity structures and link structures, which connect entity structures. Entity structures contain semantic information about a segment of primary data. Link structures describe semantic relations between segments of primary data.

Most important type of entity structure in DiAML:

dialogue act structure <S,A, D, f>, consisting of:

- speaker S;

- addressee A;

- dimension D;

- communicative function f or a pair <f, q> with qualifier(s) q

Link structures represent functional, feedback, and rhetorical relations.

7. DiAML

Dialogue Act Markup Language

DiAML example

P1: What time does the next train to Utrecht leave?

P2: The next train to Utrecht leaves at 8:32.

DiAML example - segmentation

P1: What time does the next train to Utrecht leave? = functional segment fs1


DiAML example

P1: What time does the next train to Utrecht leave? fs1 [Set Question, in Task dimension]


DiAML example

P1: What time does the next train to Utrecht leave? fs1 [Set Question]


AuFB The next train to Utrecht functional segment fs2 [Auto-Positive]

DiAML example



AuFB The next train to Utrecht fs2 [Auto-Positive] feedback dependence on fs1

DiAML example

P1: What time does the next train to Utrecht leave? Fs1 [Set Question]


AuFB The next train to Utrecht = fs2 [Auto-Feedback] feedback dependence on fs1Task The next train to Utrecht leaves I think at 8:32. = fs3 [Answer]

DiAML example


P2: The next train to Utrecht leaves I think at 8:32.

AuFB The next train to Utrecht = fs2 [Auto-Feedback] feedback dependence on fs1Task The next train to Utrecht leaves at 8:32. = fs3 [Answer] functional dependence on the Set

Question in fs1

DiAML example

1. P1: What time does the next train to Utrecht leave?

Task: fs1: What time does the next train to Utrecht leave?

Set Question

2. P2: The next train to Utrecht leaves at 8:32.

Task: fs2: The next train to Utrecht leaves I think at 8:32.

Answer

functional dependence relation to preceding Set Question

AuFB: fs3: The next train to Utrecht leaves

Auto-Positive

feedback dependence relation to fs1

DiAML example, annotation

P1: What time does the next train to Utrecht leave? fs1 [SetQuestion]


AuFB The next train to Utrecht fs2 [autoPositive] feedback dependence on fs1Task The next train to Utrecht leaves I think at 8:32. fs3 [answer] functional dependence on preceding SetQuestion

<diaml xmlns:"http://www.iso.org/diaml/">

<dialogueAct xml:id="da1" sender="#p1" addressee="#p2" target="#fs1" communicativeFunction="setQuestion" dimension="task”/>

<dialogueAct xml:id="da2" sender="#p2" addressee="#p1" target="#fs2" communicativeFunction="autoPositive” dimension="autoFeedback” feedbackDependence="#fs1"/>

<dialogueAct xml:id="da3" sender="#p2" addressee="#p1" target="#fs2" communicativeFunction="answer” dimension="task” functionalDependence="#da1"/>

</diaml>

DiAML example 2

P1: What time does the next train to Utrecht leave?


DiAML example 2 certainty qualifier


P2: The next train to Utrecht leaves I think at 8:32.AutoFB The next train to Utrecht = fs2 [Auto-Positive] feedback dependence on fs1Task The next train to Utrecht leaves at 8:32. = fs3 [Answer, uncertain] functional dependence on the Set Question in fs1

DiAML example 2 annotation



AuFB The next train to Utrecht fs2 [Auto-Positive] feedback dependence on fs1Task The next train to Utrecht leaves I think at 8:32. fs3 [Answer, uncertain] functional dependence on preceding Se tQuestion

<diaml xmlns:"http://www.iso.org/diaml/">

<dialogueAct xml:id="da1" sender="#p1" addressee="#p2" target="#fs1" communicativeFunction="setQuestion" dimension="task”/>

<dialogueAct xml:id="da2" sender="#p2" addressee="#p1" target="#fs2" communicativeFunction="autoPositive” dimension="autoFeedback” feedbackDependence="#fs1"/>

<dialogueAct xml:id="da3" sender="#p2" addressee="#p1" target="#fs2" communicativeFunction="answer” certainty=“uncertain” dimension=“task” functionalDependence="#da1"/>

</diaml>

DiAML example 3

1. P1: Do you know what time the next train to Utrecht leaves?

DiAML example 3


Difference with What time does the next train to Utrecht leave? [Set Question]

(“direct question” versus “indirect question”)

DiAML example 3




Definition of Set Question;

Communicative function of a dialogue act performed by a speaker S in order to know which elements of a given set have a certain property, specified by the semantic content of the dialogue act;

S puts pressure on the addressee A to provide this information;

S believes that at least one element of that set has that property;

S assumes that A knows which elements of that set have that property.

DiAML example 3




Definition of Set Question;

Communicative function of a dialogue act performed by a speaker S

(a) in order to know which elements of a given set have a certain property, specified by the semantic content of the dialogue act;

(b) S puts pressure on the addressee A to provide this information;

(c) S believes that at least one element of that set has that property;

(d) S assumes that A knows which elements of that set have that property.

For the question ”Do you know…” condition (d) does not apply; in fact the speaker asks whether A has the requested information.

DiAML example 3




For the question ”Do you know…” condition (d) does not apply; in fact the speaker asks whether A has the requested information.

“Do you know what time the next train to Utrecht leaves?”

is semantically equivalent to:

“Please tell me what time the next train to Utrecht leaves, if you know.” = conditional request: [Request, conditional]

DiAML example 3


is semantically equivalent to:

“Please tell me what time the next train to Utrecht leaves, if you know.” = conditional request: [Request, conditional]

DiAML annotation:

<dialogueAct xml:id=“da1” target=“#fs1” sender=“#p1” addressee=“#p2” communicativeFunction=“request” conditionality=“conditional” dimension=“task”/>

DiAML example 4

P1: Do you know what time the next train to Utrecht leaves?

P2: Let me see,… the next train to Utrecht leaves I think at 8:32.

DiAML example 4

P1: What time does the next train to Utrecht leave? fs1 [Set Question, conditional]


TimeM Let me see,… fs2 [Stalling]


Task The next train to Utrecht leaves I think at 8:32. fs4 [Answer] functional dependence on preceding Set Question

DiAML example 4

P1: What time does the next train to Utrecht leave? fs1 [Set Question, conditional]



TurnM Let me see,… fs2 [Take Turn]



DiAML example1. P1: What time does the next train to Utrecht leave? fs1 [Set Question, conditional]

2. P2: Let me see,… the next train to Utrecht leaves I think at 8:32.


TurnM Let me see,… fs2 [Take Turn]



Annotation of turn 2:

<dialogueAct xml:id="da2" sender="#p2" addressee="#p1" target="#fs2" communicativeFunction=“stalling” dimension=“timeManagement”/> <dialogueAct xml:id="da3" sender="#p2" addressee="#p1" target="#fs2" communicativeFunction=“turnTake” dimension=“turnManagement”/> <dialogueAct xml:id="da4" sender="#p2" addressee="#p1" target="#fs3" communicativeFunction="autoPositive” dimension="autoFeedback” feedbackDependence="#fs1"/> <dialogueAct xml:id="da5" sender="#p2" addressee="#p1" target="#fs4" communicativeFunction="answer” dimension=“task” functionalDependence="#da1"/>

8.

Conclusion,

further information

Concluding remarks ISO 24617-2 accepted in January 2011 as international standard.

Distinction of general-purpose versus dimension-specific function and 9 or 10 dimensions, in combination with qualifiers, functional dependence relations, feedback relations, and rhetorical relations gives ISO 24617-2 and DIT++ the means to build annotations with a high precision; the higher levels in the communicative function hierarchies allow less fine-grained annotations.

DIT++ Release 5 is a strictly downward compatible extension of ISO 24617-2, having the additional dimension of Contact Management and more fine-grained feedback functions.

The DiAML annotation language has a formal model-theoretic semantics semantics in terms of updates of a context model, using combinations of elementary update schemes.

ISO 24617-2 annotations can be made manually with satisfactory reliability, and can be automatically performed with high accuracy (Petukhova & Bunt, IWCS 2011).

Documentation

Available at http://semantic-annotation.uvt.nl

- ISO DIS 24617-2, July, 2010 (copyrighted);

- Bunt, Harry, Harry, Jan Alexandersson, Jean Carletta, Jae-Woong Choe, Alex Fang, Koiti Hasida, Kiyong Lee, Volha Petukhova, Andrei Popescu-Belis, Laurent Romary, Claudia Soria, and David Traum “Towards an ISO standard for dialogue act information”, Proceedings LREC 2010

- Petukhova, Volha and Harry Bunt, “The independence of dimensions in multimodal dialogue annotation”. In Proceedings NAACL-HLT 2009

- Ide, Nancy and Harry Bunt (2010) “Anatomy of semantic annotation schemes: Mappings to GrAF”. In Proceedings of the 4th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW-IV), Uppsala.

ISOcat data category registry: http://www.isocat.org

References

Bunt, Harry (2010) “A methodology for designing semantic annotation languages.” In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Global Interoperability for Language Resources (ICGL-2), Hong Kong, pp. 29-46.

Bunt, Harry (2011) “Multifunctionality in dialogue.” Computer, Speech and Language 25, 225-245.

Bunt, Harry (2011) “The semantics of dialogue acts.” In Proceedings IWCS 2011, the 9th International Conference on Computational Semantics. Oxford.

Petukhova, Volha and Laurent Prévot and Harry Bunt (2011) “Multilevel discourse relations between dialogue units.” In Proceedings ISA-6, the 6th International Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation. Oxford.

Petukhova, Volha and Harry Bunt (2011) “Incremental dialogue understanding.” In Proceedings IWCS 2011, the 9th International Conference on Computational Semantics. Oxford.

Multidimensional dialogue act annotation using ISO 24617-2 Harry Bunt Tilburg University ISO 24617-2...

Documents

Transcript of Multidimensional dialogue act annotation using ISO 24617-2 Harry Bunt Tilburg University ISO 24617-2...