Integrating Joint Behaviour and Dialogue Description
Agents are becoming increasingly common as a means of structuring interactive systems, due to the highly complex and concurrent nature of modern systems. The manner in which interaction between these agents is specified is of fundamental importance, and must pay heed to expressivity and reuse concerns. There are also concerns specific to interactive systems, and in particular the need to specify and reason about user-system dialogue. We have shown previously that the standard model of object interaction is inadequate with respect to these concerns, and that the action model performs better with respect to these criteria. In this paper these results are drawn together with approaches previously taken in interactive systems. From this basis a schema calculus with interleaving semantics is proposed, which better addresses the concerns of expressivity and reuse in the interactive systems context.
KeywordsAction Model Interactive System Specification Language Expressive Power Schema Expression
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.G. D. Abowd. Formal Aspects of Human-Computer Interaction. DPhil Thesis, University of Oxford Computing Laboratory: Programming Research Group. 1991. Available as Technical Monograph PRG-97.Google Scholar
- 2.H. Alexander. Structuring dialogues using CSP. In M. D. Harrison and H. W. Thimbleby, editors, Formal Methods in Human Computer Interaction, pages 273–295. Cambridge University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
- 3.C.J. Bramwell. Formal aspects of the Design Rationale of Interactive Systems. DPhil Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of York. 1995.Google Scholar
- 4.A.M. Dearden and M.D. Harrison. Formalising human error resistance and human error tolerance. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Human-Machine Interaction and Artificial Intelligence in Aerospace. EURISCO, 1995.Google Scholar
- 5.G. Doherty and M.D. Harrison. Reuse in action and event based object oriented systems. Department of Computer Science, University of York, 1998.Google Scholar
- 6.D. J. Duke and M.D. Harrison. Abstract interaction objects. Proceedings of Eurographics ‘93, Computer Graphics Forum, 12(3), 1993.Google Scholar
- 9.B. Fields, N. Merriam, and A. Dearden. DM VIS: Design, Modelling and Validation of Interactive Systems. In M.D. Harrison and J.C. Torres, editors, Proceedings, 4th Eurographics Workshop on Design, Specification, and Verification of Interactive Systems, Springer Computer Science. Springer Wien, 1997.Google Scholar
- 10.A. Griffiths. Object-oriented operations have two parts. In D.J. Duke and A.S. Evans, editors, Proceedings of BCS-FACS Northern Formal Methods Workshop, llkley, 1997.Google Scholar
- 11.H-M. Järvinen. The design of a specification language for reactive systems. Doctor of technology, Tampere University of Technology, 1992. Available as Tampere University of Technology Report 95.Google Scholar
- 12.Jifeng He. Various simulations and refinements. In Volume 430 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 340–360. Springer Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
- 17.H. Mili, F. Mili, and A. Mili. Reusing software: Issues and research directions. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21(6), June 1995.Google Scholar