曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
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
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
航空资料3(53)
