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
malfunction of the thrust reverser. The airline found that other
aircraft of the same type also had missing cotter pins due to the
same cause.
2. INTEGRITY MAXIMS
The project is starting its third year of effort, studying in
particular the FCOM for the Airbus A340 aircraft. To date, the
project has included (1) a comprehensive comparative review of
the original A340 FCOM produced by Airbus Industrie and
editions based on this FCOM produced by airlines in France
and Germany, (2) situated task analysis with Airbus and
Aerospatiale staff who designed the development and revision
process and who actually produce and revise the FCOM, and
(3) interviews with airline staff who adapt the Airbus FCOM
for their own company and provide feedback to Airbus on
FCOM use.
We interviewed technical support engineers, development
process managers, technical documentation managers and
specialists, and publications managers and staff. Our study
revealed a need to support development and revision across
organizational boundaries. In particular, as the FCOM (and the
systems it documents) is developed, revised and adapted,
information is transferred back and forth between Aerospatiale,
Airbus Industrie, and the airlines. The flow of information is
not linear, in that there are major feedback loops between
Aerospatiale and Airbus, and between Airbus and the airlines.
There is a meticulous process of technical validation among all
the participants.
The project’s reviews and interviews enabled us to develop a set
of maxims for consistency in safety-critical documentation:
Coherence of meaning: Integrity of semantic relationships
Ml Semantic relations should not be changed unless the
change is intended
Coherence of reference: Integrity of consistency and
differentiation in referring to domain entities, actions and
relations
M2 References to the same thing should appear the same.
M3 References to different things should appear different.
Corollary:
Cl Changes in referential expressions should be
propagated.
The word “integrity” as used in the maxims has at least two
meanings, which play complementary roles. Documentation
can be said to have integrity when all of it is present in the
form intended by the authors. Documentation can also be said
to have integrity when the user can believe it without
reservation. Thus documentation with integrity remains
coherent through development and revision, and can be trusted
in use. And, even if FCOMs could be generated from
specifications [lo, 111, the developers must still ensure
integrity across an iterative or co-evolutionary process.
The maxims are consistent with findings of other
documentation researchers who conducted task analyses of
similar situations, particularly with respect to support for
accurate and consistent terminology and for propagation of
changes [7].
Other researchers have begun to investigate methods of
automatically generating documentation content from a model
of the system to be documented. In particular, the DiDoLog
prototype [l] showed that a partial model of a system, such as
that of an aircraft brake system, could be used to generate a
textual description guaranteed to be consistent and complete
with respect to the partial model. However, they did not
discuss the generation of procedures and, especially, did not
address the question of how to maintain the correctness and
completeness of the information after generation of the raw
text, such as in the transformation of the raw text into a more
comprehensible form and possible subsequent revision or
adaptation as in the case of the Airbus FCOM.
An approach to the automated generation of text for procedures
was developed by Paris et al. [7], who created a tool calIed
DRAFTER for the generation of instructions in multiple
languages. Using a knowledge editor, the author creates an
abstract, language-independent representation of the underlying
system, including the steps to be taken by the user. From this
specification, DRAFTER could produce instructions in both
French and English. If the author wished to revise the text,
they would change the specification and regenerate the text.
DRAFTER’s underlying representation was object-oriented, in
that it employed classes and instances. Its language-generation
facilities were sophisticated. The creators of DRAFTER did not
explicitly address the issue of specialization of documentation
within and across organizational boundaries. However, it is
clear that their approach could be adapted to this application.
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8(11)
