Page 162 -

-
4.4 Conceptual frameworks 1 3 1

A: Declare

/ A: Withdraw
A: Reject \ 1
6: Withdraw

Figure 4.1 3 Conversation for action (CfA) diagram (from Winograd and Flores, 1986, p. 65).

in a linear order. For example, A (state 1) may request B to do homework (state
2), B may promise to do it after she has watched a TV program (state 3), B may
then report back to A that the homework is done (state 4) and A, having looked
at it, declares that this is the case (state 5). In reality, conversation dances tend to
be more complex. For example, A may look at the homework and see that it is
very shoddy and request that B complete it properly. The conversation is thus
moved back a step. B may promise to do the homework but may in fact not do it
at all, thereby canceling their promise (state 7), or A may say that B doesn't need
to do it any more (state 9). B may also suggest an alternative, like cooking dinner
(moving to state 6).
The CfA framework was used as the basis of a conceptual model for a com-
mercial software product called the Coordinator. The goal was to develop a system
to facilitate communication in a variety of work settings, like sales, finance, general
management, and planning. The Coordinator was designed to enable electronic
messages to be sent between people in the form of explicit speech acts. When send-
ing someone a request, say "Could you get the report to me", the sender was also
required to select the menu option "request." This was placed in the subject header
of the message, thereby explicitly specifying the nature of the speech act. Other
speech-act options included offer, promise, inform, and question (see Figure 4.14).
The system also asked the user to fill in the dates by which the request should be
completed. Another user receiving such a message had the option of responding
with another labeled speech act. These included:
acknowledge
promise
counter-offer
decline
free form