DOMAIN-INDEPENDENT
 
NATURAL LANGUAGE INTI~tFACES:
 
SESSION INTRODUCTION
 
Aravind K. Joshi Department of Computer and Information Science R. 258 Moore 
School University of Pennsylvanla Philadelphia, PA 19104
 
I n By c o ~ m e n t s , l w i l l t r y t o s u m m a r i z e briefly the six 
papers in thls session, pointing out sow key aspects of each contrtbutlon, 
listing some common t h e m e s , a n d r a i s i n g some q u e s t i o n s , n 
o t f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f criticizing one o r a n o t h e r c o n t r i 
b u t i o n , but rather for the purpose of prodding the authors to discuss 
these questions in their presentations.
 The s i x p a p e r s are(alphabetically)
 
i n the s e s s i o n
 
[GHF]:A r o b u s t p o r t a b l e NL i n t e r f a c e is daecribad, the 
portability e v a l u c e d with r e s p e c t t o two a p p l i c a t i o n d o 
m a i n s . The Inlttal p r o c e s s i n g i s b a s e d on t h e L i n g u i s 
t i c String Parser. The d o m a i n d e p e n d e n t i n f o r m a t i o n is 
c h a r a c t e r i z e d by d o m a i n i n f o r m a t i o n s c h e a a which 
s p e c i f y t h e correspondences between information structures i n t h e t e 
x t s and t h e v a r i o u s i n t e r n a l representations. Hodularity of 
design is emphasized for achieving portability and managing c o m p l e x i t y 
.
 
I . [GJN] J.M. f l n s p a r g , A r o b u s t and portable natural language 
data base interface. 2. [GHF] R. C r i s h m a n , L. R i r s c h a a n , and C 
. F r i e d m t n , I s o l a t i n g d o m a i n d e p e n d e n c i e s in n a 
t u r a l l a n g u a g e i n t e r f a c e s . 3. [GRO] B.J. O r o s z , Team: 
A transportable natural language interface system. 4. [TB] M. T e m p l e t o o 
and J . Burger, Problems i n n a t u r a l l a n g u a g e i n t e r f a c e s 
to DBMS:a retrospective view of the EUFID system.
 5; [TT] B.H. Thompson and F.B. Thompson, [ncroduclng ASK, a simple knowledgeable 
system. 6. [GT] G. Guide and C. Tasso, IR-NLI: an expert natural language 
interface to online d a t a bases.
 
[GRO]:The m a j o r t h e m i s t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of transportable 
NL i n t e r f a c e s . A unique f e a t u r e o f t h e TEA}{ s y s t e m i s 
t h e i n t e r a c t i v e facllty for acquiring information for adapting gL i 
n t e r f a c e s t o d a t a bases f o r w h i c h t h e y were n o t h a n d t 
a i l o r e d . The DIALOGIC s y s t e m c o n s t r u c t s a l o g i c a l f o 
r m f o r t h e q u e r y and the data base access system translates the logical 
form Into a data base query. Transportability is achieved by factoring the 
domain dependant and domain independent information. Soma acquisitional and 
control stracegles are also discussed.
 
I.
 
BRIEF SUMMARIES
 
[TB]: This is a retrospective view of the SUFID system, traclng i t s 
develpoment from the initlal design s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , tncludln g 
various stages of intermediate implementations and exparlence with different 
applications, and finally,endlng with a list of problems to be solved. TB 
conclude that robust ~ systems do not exist and provide some guidelines for the 
d e s i g n of such systems.
 
[CIN]:A robust ~ data base interface has been described. The system consists of 
two parts:a natural Language processor for building a formal representation and 
an application program for building a query in an augmented relational algebra. 
Portability is achieved by providing (i) definitions of new concepts for the NL 
processor and ( i l ) the connection between the relations in the data base and 
~ processor c o n c e p t s .
 
[ T T ] : T h e NL i n t e r f a c e ( A S K ) i s meant f o r a u s e r who w a 
n t s to c r e a t e , t e s t c h a n g e , augment, and, of course, u s e h e 
r / h i s knowledge base. The user interface is a limited subset of English. 
Fast response time is a major goal. Transportability is achieved via a dialogue 
in ASK which drives the Bulk Data Input Capability. Dialogues In ASK can also he 
used to design dialogues. A unique feature of t h e s y s t e m i s t h a t I t 
h a s b e e n a l r e a d y i m p l e m e n t e d on a d e s k t r c o m p u t e 
r , R P 9 8 4 6 .
 
fi[GT]:An ~ interface, IR-NLI, i s d e s c r i b e d , which i s meant f o r n o 
n professional users for accessing on-Line data bases. The b a s i c c o m p o n 
e n t s of t h e s y s t e m a r e described in general terms. An i l l u s t r 
a t i v e e x a m p t e i s p r e s e n t e d i n which , i n a d d i t i o n t 
o the user-system dialogue, the Internal representaclons and the search 
sCrategles are reported in the Euronet DIANE EUROLANGUAGE. Several future 
directions are suggesced,includlng t h e system taking more InlCiaCive and 
providing Justification of Its mode of operaclon.
 
5. TT have empahsized the speed of r e s p o n s e a s a m a j o r f e a t u r e 
of t h e i r s y s t e m . What a r e t h e t r a d e - o i l s b e t w e e n s 
p e e d and t h e m o d u l a r i t y of t h e d e s i g n ? TT s h o u l d 
comment on t h i s a s p e c t a s w a l l a s o c h e r r e l a t e d a s p e c 
t s due co t h e i r c o n c e r n f o r b r i n g i n g up t h e s y s t e m on 
a d e s k t o p c o m p u t e r . 6 . Most of t h e i s s u e s d i s c u s s e 
d by GT i n t h e f i r s t f o u r s e c t i o n s of t h e i r p a p e r p e r 
t a i n co making f o r m a l q u e r y l a n g u a g e ( F L ) i u c e r f a c 
e s also portable. ~n f a c t , many o f t h e i s s u e s about portability 
chat the o t h e r a u t h o r s have a d d r e s s e d co a r e a l s o r e l a 
t e d co FL interfaces. It would be very useful if soma(or all) of the authors 
discuss some specific problems about portability chat are special to NL 
interfaces in contrast to PL interfaces. Does the need for having flexible and 
9ortable interfaces for data bases necessarily force us towards NL interfaces ? 
Ne hope so ! Perhaps, some of the authors will comment on Chls issue. Their 
specific experience with chelr own systems would be very relevant here. 7. A 
quesClon chaC is worth discussing by all the authors is whether portability and 
robustness can be helped if the design of the data base itself is d e c e m i n 
e d by the consideration chat an NL Interface will be hooked to IC ?
 
If.
 
SOME QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
 
[. A l l a u t h o r s have d e a l t w i t h t h e i s s u e o f domain 
independence, an i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t o f portability and r o b u s t n 
e s s . The main s t r a t e g y for achieving this behavtour is to factor the s 
y s t e m i n t o two p a r t s , one b a s e d on domain i n d e p e n d e n t 
knowledge and t h e o c h e r on t h e domain d e p e n d e n t k n o w l e d g 
e . At l e a s t two systems[GRO and I'T] talk about Interactively acquiring the 
[nformaCion needed for adaptation. GRO and TT should discuss the similarities 
and d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r approaches to acquisition. 2. GIN u s e 
s t h e p r e f e r e n c e i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e d a t a b a s e c o 
n n e c t i o n p a r t of h i s s y s t e m to induce c o e r c i o n s ( e . g 
. , "a d o c t o r w i t h i n 200 miles" meaning "a ship wlth a doctor on it 
within 200 miles). GRO in TEAM achieves the ~ame effect by inference rules. ~t 
is noc clear Just what the difference is between GRO's approach and GEN"s 
approach, i.e., between inducing coercions and making the inferences. GRO nad 
GiN should discuss the realtive merits of their approaches. 3. The domain 
information schema of GHF specify the correspondence between information 
structures as chef appear in the text and the various internal representaclons 
of i n f o r m a t i o n in the system. The system described by GHF is the only 
one in this session which derives ice domain dependent knowledge from the texts 
Instead of domain expects. GHJ should discuss how successful ~he 7 are with thls 
approach. Also perhaps the 7 should discuss how their repreeenCatlons compare 
with those In TEAM[GROI. 4. T~ have reviewed the hlecory of EUFZD and ended up 
on a negative note. They feel robust systems do not really exlsC yet. Since a[l 
the other authors have described "robust" systems, perhaps TB should discuss 
their conclusions in some de,all and comment on ChL claims of these authors.
 