<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P01-1031">
  <Title>Resolving Ellipsis in Clarification</Title>
  <Section position="7" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
6 Summary and Future Work
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In this paper we offered an analysis of the types of representations needed to analyze CE, the requisite operations thereon, and how these update ISs during grounding and clarification.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Systems which respond appropriately to CEs in general will need a great deal of background knowledge. Even choosing among the responses in (5) might be a pretty knowledge intensive business. However, there are some clear strategies that might be pursued. For example, if Malvern has been discussed previously in the dialogue and understood then (5a,b) would not be appropriate responses. In order to be able to build dialogue systems that can handle even some restricted aspects of CEs we need to understand more about what the possible interpretations are and this is what we have attempted to do in this paper. We are currently working on a system which integrates SHARDS (see (Ginzburg et al., 2001), a system which processes dialogue ellipses) with GoDiS (see (Bohlin et al., 1999), a dialogue system developed using TRINDIKIT, which makes use of ISs modelled on those suggested in the KOS framework. Our aim in the near future is to incorporate simple aspects of negotiative dialogue including CEs in a GoDiS-like system employing SHARDS.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>