<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W97-0602">
  <Title>Feature A B C D E F G</Title>
  <Section position="8" start_page="12" end_page="12" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
8 Conclusion
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> ~ecent technological advances are bringing spoken dialogue systems closer to markets, to real applications. As the focus of this research field shifts from academic study to commercial reality, we feel it is important to maintain a theoretical underpinning: a generic model for independent qualitative assessment and comparison of practical Interactive Spoken Dialogue Systems. We invite practical systems developers to help us assess their products against this generic template, allowing us in turn to maintain and refine the theoretical generic model to keep step with practical developments.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The list of features can be used in two ways: to evaluate the 'genericness' of a dialogue manager, and to ascertain whether a dialogue manager is suitable to a particular application. In choosing between rival Dialogue Managment Systems, it is not sensible to try to use a simple metric of accuracy or naturalness applicable across all applications. Different applications require different DMS features. Prospective users hoping to re-use a DMS should first decide what they want from one; if they can frame their requirements in terms of our generic template, they can eliminate candidate systems which do not focus on the required features.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>