Automated drafting of self-explaining documents

The capacity for self-explanation can make computer-drafted documents more credible, assist in the retrieval and adaptation of archival documents, and permit comparison of documents at a deep level. We propose a knowledge-based model of documents that makes explicit the underlying goals that documents are intended to achieve and the stylistic conventions to which they must conform. These goals and conventions are expressed in a dual justi cation structure that represents the illocutionary and rhetorical dependencies underlying documents. After demonstrating how a document grammar derived from dual justi cation structures can be used to automate document drafting, we show how documents can exploit dual justi cation structures to \explain themselves" by answering queries about (1) the purposes for inclusion of text in the document and (2) the justi cation for propositions expressed in the text. This self-explanation framework has been implemented in the Docu-Planner, a prototype document generation system that produces \queryable" documents.

[1]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  PLAID: proactive legal assistance , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[2]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse , 1986, CL.

[3]  J. Austin How to do things with words , 1962 .

[4]  L SidnerCandace,et al.  Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse , 1986 .

[5]  Owen Rambow,et al.  On the need for domain communication knowledge , 1991 .

[6]  Kathleen McKeown,et al.  Text generation: using discourse strategies and focus constraints to generate natural language text , 1985 .

[7]  Karl Branting An issue-oriented approach to judicial document assembly , 1993, ICAIL '93.

[8]  H. Grice Logic and conversation , 1975 .

[9]  A. Koller,et al.  Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language , 1969 .

[10]  Marc Lauritsen Knowing documents , 1993, ICAIL '93.

[11]  Timothy G. W. Gordon,et al.  A theory construction approach to legal document assembly , 1989 .

[12]  Alison Cawsey,et al.  Explanation and interaction - the computer generation of explanatory dialogues , 1992, ACL-MIT press series in natural language processing.

[13]  Cécile Paris,et al.  Tailoring Object Descriptions to a User's Level of Expertise , 1988, Comput. Linguistics.

[14]  Marek J. Sergot,et al.  A constraint-driven system for contract assembly , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[15]  Eduard H. Hovy,et al.  Automated Discourse Generation Using Discourse Structure Relations , 1993, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Owen Rambow,et al.  Knowledge requirements for the automatic generation of project management reports , 1993, Proceedings of 8th Knowledge-Based Software Engineering Conference.

[17]  Johanna D. Moore Participating in explanatory dialogues , 1994 .

[18]  James C. Lester,et al.  Developing and Empirically Evaluating Robust Explanation Generators: The KNIGHT Experiments , 1997, Comput. Linguistics.

[19]  Andrew Stranieri,et al.  The split-up system: integrating neural networks and rule-based reasoning in the legal domain , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[20]  S. Toulmin The uses of argument , 1960 .

[21]  James C. Lester,et al.  Justification Structures for Document Reuse , 1996, EWCBR.

[22]  C. C. Marshall,et al.  Representing the structure of a legal argument , 1989, ICAIL '89.

[23]  DocumentationW. Lewis JohnsonUSC Dynamic ( Re ) Generation of Software Documentation , 1994 .

[24]  Michael Elhadad,et al.  FUF: the Universal Unifier User Manual Version 5.2 , 1991 .

[25]  Kathleen McKeown,et al.  Generating Concise Natural Language Summaries , 1995, Inf. Process. Manag..

[26]  James F. Allen Natural language understanding , 1987, Bejnamin/Cummings series in computer science.