The purpose of this exchange is to establish a mutual set of referents between the E2 and the lead pilot. It is implicit in this conversation that the details of the individual BRA reports may not agree due to the changing external state. Thus, the point of the negotiation is to trade state information over time until each participant's description of the state of the contact is within delta of the other participant's. Note that, contrary to military specification, the number of referents is conceptually and linguistically part of the BRA report.
<initial-cs-exch> = <yourcs> <mycs>
<embedded-cs-exch> = <yourcs> <mycs> | <mycs>
<ack> = [<mycs>] roger [<info>] | roger [<yourcs>] | copy [<info>]
<bearing> = [bearing] 1...359 [degrees]
<range> = [range] 5...50 [miles]
<altitude> = angels 10...50
<bra> = [{ [a single] contact | contacts }]
<bearing> [<range> <altitude>]
<id-request> = bogey dope
<id-reject> = <mycs> is clean
<id-tentative> = intermittent contact
<E-id-confirm> = that's your { bogey | contact }
<P-id-confirm> = <mycs> has contact | contact
<info> = that | "particular piece of info being acknowledged"
Simple acquisition of the target is the degenerate case in which the E2 provides adequate information for unambiguous resolution given the pilot's state. The basic discourse pattern between pilot (P) and E2 (E) is described by:
E: <initial-cs-exch> <bra> P: <ack> <bra> E: <ack> <E-id-confirm> [P: <ack> ]The more complex case of negotiated acquisition of the target requires one or more instances of the bracketed turns below. It occurs because, initially, either the E2's information or the pilot's state is inadequate to achieve resolution which then proceeds incrementally over time.
This discourse pattern is described by:
E: <initial-cs-exch> <bra>
{P. <ack> <id-reject> | <id-tentative> | <id-request>
E: <ack> <bra>}*
P: <ack> <bra>
E: <ack> <E-id-confirm>
[P: <ack> ]
The pattern can be interrupted at any point after initiation of the bracketed
turns with
P: <P-id-confirm>This signals that the pilot has identified the contact based on previously communicated information and terminates the Identify Bogey discourse.
The utterance model represents X-bar phrase structure as assumed in Government and Binding theory (e.g. (Chomsky, 1986; Cowper, 1992)). The utterance model for the constituents in this grammar are as follows:
<yourcs> <mycs>
<ack> = [<mycs>] roger [<info>] | roger [<yourcs>] | copy [<info>]
<bearing> = [bearing] 1...359 [degrees]
Click lexicon to view the lexical entries from which the utterance model is generated.Situation model
The situation model serves as both the semantic and the referential representation. The semantics of NL-soar is lexically based, meaning that the ontology is at least as rich as the natural language itself. An example of this kind of ontology is Wordnet (Miller, 1990) . The specific nature of the Tac-air domain prohibits use of the Wordnet ontology. Rather, we have used it as a model to create a separate Tac-air ontology which involves a decomposition of situations into objects, relations, and properties. To view the situation model for the constituents in this grammar, click on any of the following:
Blah Blah BlahClick semantics to view the semantic entries from which the situation model is generated.Comprehension overview
Generation overview