<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="A83-1011">
  <Title>OIL ANALYSIS AVAILABLE DRILL STEM TESTS PERFORMED MECHANICAL LOG FILE WELL DRILLING PROBLEM WILDCAT WELL SHELL CURRENT OPERATOR WELL SHOW OF OIL &gt; 2000&amp;quot; TEXACO ORIGINAL OPERATOR</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="69" end_page="70" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
ALABAMA GEORGIA
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Please input the appropriate state or a new county specification.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> *make it new haven, ct.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> A contour interval was not specified. Would you like the CI from the previous  scale of i&amp;quot; = 2000. 9&amp;quot; As long as the request is conceptually coherent and unambiguous, EXPLORER will be able to handle a wide range of stylistic constructs. This last request was sufficiently specified for EXELORER to interpret it without further user interaction, but many requests (especially those generated by novice users) are likely tO require an interactive dialog. For example, the following interaction might take place with an  EXPLORER will query a user as needed to get missing information and resolve any ambiguities that may be present. Notice that EXPLORER naturally offers the user an option of inheriting many specifications from the previous map request. Explorationists often find it useful to examine a sequence of related maps, so our interface has been designed to make map sequences easy to generate.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> EXPLORER has been undergoing an initial test phase since July 13, 1982. During this time a variety of oil company employees have dialed up the program and entered map requests. While we do not yet have enough test requests for a comprehensive evaluation of the system, we have analyzed EXPLORER's performance over the three-week period from 7/13/82 tO 8/6/82 in an effort to assess its strengths and weaknesses. During this time 39 requests were successfully transmitted to EXPLORER by 8 different individuals. In order co evaluate EXPLORER's performance, we will consider the following categories of performance: (Al) original input is interpreted correctly on the first try - perfect performance.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4">  (AZ) original input is interpreted correctly after one or more clarifying interactions. These interactions may be due to typing errors, spelling errors, missing information, or system errors.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> (A3) original input is never interpreted correctly due to a system failure of some sort.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> If a request can be categorized as an AI or A~ request, EXPLORER is fully functional even though it may make a mistake at some point in its processing. For example, if EXPLORER does not recognize a word, it will query the user for synonyms. If one of the synonyms is recognized, EZLPORER recovers from its own recognition error, and the request will be categorized as an A2 request. When a system error is fatal in the sense that the user does not or cannot recover from it, we categorize the request as an A3 request: an A3 request should not result in map generation. We have omitted from this analysis any requests Chat were aborted due to transmission errors or user-initiated interrupts.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> In addition to our three performance categories, we will characterize the general complexity of a request in three ways: \[I\] Surface Complexity: The number of words in the original input request.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="70" end_page="70" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
\[2\] Interactive Complexity:
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The number of complete interactions between the user and EXPLORER during a single request dialog.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>