Abstract
An important issue faced by research on distributed collective practices is the amount and nature of the data available for study. While persistent mediated interaction offers unprecedented opportunities for research, the wealth and richness of available data pose issues on their own, calling for new methods of investigation. In such a context, automated tools can offer coverage, both within and across collectives. In this paper, we investigate the potential contributions of semantic analyses of linguistic interactions for the study of collective processes and practices. In other words, we are interested in discovering how linguistic interaction is related to collective action, as well as in exploring how computational tools can make use of these relationships for the study of distributed collectives.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Allen, James F., Mark G. Core (1997). Draft of DAMSL: Dialog Act Markup in Several Layers. Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester, NY
Bannon, Liam (ed.) (1995): Commentary Section about the Suchman-Winograd Debate. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 29–95
Bugzilla, Team (2005a): Anatomy of a Bug. http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/tip/html/bug_page.html (visited: Nov 12, 2005)
Bugzilla, Team (2005b): Bug’s Life Cycle. http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/tip/html/lifecycle.html (visited: Nov 12, 2005)
Bunt, Harry C. (2005): A Framework for Dialogue Act Specification. Presented at the Fourth ISO/SIGSEM Workshop on Multimodal Semantic Representation, Tilburg, The Netherlands. Available at: http://let.uvt.nl/general/people/bunt/docs/fdas.ps
Carstensen Peter H., Cartsen Sørensen, Tuomo Tuikka (1995). Let’s Talk About Bugs!. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 7(1):33–54
Core, Mark G. and James F. Allen (1997): Coding Dialogs with the DAMSL Annotation Scheme. Working Notes of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Communicative Action in Humans and Machines, Boston, MA, pp. 28–35
Crowston Kevin (1997). A Coordination Theory Approach to Organizational Process Design. Organization Science 8(2):157–175
Crowston, Kevin, Hala Annabi, James Howison and Chengetai Masango (2004): Towards A Portfolio of FLOSS Project Success Measures. Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Open Source Software Engineering, International Conference on Software Enginnering (ICSE’04), Edinburgh, Scotland
Crowston Kevin and James Howison (2005): The Social Structure of Free and Open Source Software Development. First Monday 10:2
De Souza, Cleidson R.B., David F. Redmiles, Gloria Mark, John Penix and Maarten Sierhuis (2003): Management of Interdependencies in Collaborative Software Development. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE’03), Rome, Italy, pp. 294–303
Flores Fernando, Michael Graves, Brad Hartfield, and Terry Winograd (1988). Computer Systems and the Design of Organizational Interaction. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 6(2):153–172
Gacek, Cristina and Budi Arief (2004): The Many Meanings of Open Source. IEEE Software 21(1):34–40
Gasser, Les and Gabriel Ripoche (2003): Distributed Collective Practices and Free/Open-Source Software Problem Management: Perspectives and Methods. Proceedings of the Conference on Cooperation, Innovation and Technologie (CITE’03), Troyes, France
Gasser Les, Gabriel Ripoche and Robert J. Sandusky (2004). Research Infrastructure for Empirical Science of F/OSS. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’04), Edinburgh Scotland
Gerson Elihu M. and Susan Leigh Star (1986). Analyzing Due Process in the Workplace. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems 4(3):257–270
Hayes-Roth Barbara and Frederick Hayes-Roth (1979). A Cognitive Model of Planning. Cognitive Science 3(4):275–310
Herbsleb, James D. and Rebecca E. Grinter (1999): Splitting the Organization and Integrating the Code: Conway’s Law Revisited. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’99), Los Angeles, CA, pp. 85–95
Howison, James, Megan S. Conklin and Kevin Crowston (2005). OSSmole: A Collaborative Repository for FLOSS Research Data and Analyses. Proceedings of the First International OSS Conference (OSS’05), Genova, Italy
Jurafsky, Daniel, Rebecca Bates, Noah Coccaro, Rachel Martin, Marie Meteer, Klaus Ries, Elizabeth Shriberg, Andreas Stolcke, Paul Taylor and Carol Van Ess-Dykema (1998): Switchboard Discourse Language Modeling Project Final Report. Center for Speech and Language Processing, Johns Hopkins University
Mitkov Ruslan (ed) (2003): The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics. Oxford University Press, New York, NY
Mozilla Organization (2005): Mozilla’s Bugzilla Repository. http://bugzilla.mozilla.org. (visited: Nov 12, 2005)
Raymond Eric S. (2001). The Cathedral and the Bazaar. O’Reilly, Sebastopol, CA
Ripoche, Gabriel and Les Gasser (2003): Scalable Automatic Extraction of Process Models for Understanding F/OSS Bug Repair. Proceedings of the Conference on Software and Systems Engineering and their Applications (ICSSEA’03). Paris, France
Sandusky, Robert J. (2005): Information, Activity and Social Order in Distributed Work: The Case of Distributed Software Problem Management. PhD Thesis, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Scacchi Walt (2002). Understanding the Requirements for Developing Open Source Software Systems. IEE Proceedings Software 149(1):24–39
Schmidt Kjeld, Carla Simone (1996). Coordination Mechanisms: Towards a Conceptual Foundation of CSCW Systems Design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 5(2–3):155–200
Schmidt, Kjeld and Carla Simone (2000). Mind the Gap! Towards a Unified View of CSCW. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (COOP’00). Sophia Antipolis, France
Searle John R. (1975): A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts. In: Gunderson K. (ed). Language, Mind and Knowledge. University of Minneapolis Press, Minneapolis MN, pp. 344–369
Stolcke Andreas, Klaus Ries, Noah Coccaro, Elizabeth Shriberg, Rebecca Bates, Dan Jurafsky, Paul Taylor, Rachel Martin, Carol Van Ess-Dykema, Marie Meteer (2000): Dialogue Act Modeling for Automatic Tagging and Recognition of Conversational Speech. Computational Linguistics 26(3):339–373
Strauss Anselm (1988). The Articulation of Project Work: An Organizational Process. Sociological Quarterly 29(2):163–178
Suchman, Lucy (1994): Do Categories Have Politics? Computer Supported Cooperative Work 2(3):177–190
Suchman, Lucy (1996): Supporting Articulation Work. In: Kling R. (eds). Computerization and Controversy: Values, Conflicts and Social Choices. 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 407–423
WebSideStory (2005): Firefox’s Market Share Nears 7 Percent. \(\tt{\hbox{http://www.webside-}}<$> <$>\tt{\hbox{story.com/products/web-analytics/datainsights/spotlight/05{\rm -}10{\rm -}2005.html}}\) (visited: May 29, 2005)
Winograd, Terry (1987). A Language/Action Perspective on the Design of Cooperative Work. Human-Computer Interaction. 3(1):3–30
Winograd, Terry (1994). Categories, Disciplines, and Social Coordination. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 2(3):191–197
Witten Ian H. and Eibe Frank (2000): Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools with Java Implementations. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA
Yamauchi Yutaka, Makoto Yokozawa, Takeshi Shinohara, and Toru Ishida (2000): Collaboration with Lean Media: How Open-Source Software Succeeds. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’00), Philadelphia, PA, pp. 329–338
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix A – Dialogue act taxonomy
Appendix A – Dialogue act taxonomy
Details of Table 1: For each category, a definition and a few examples are provided. Examples are left uncorrected.
Assertives
Describe an actual state of the world.
Statement (\(\tt{\hbox{sta}}\))
Present objective information about a fact or the current state of the world.
-
\(\texttt{my pc has an amd k6 233\,mhz cpu and 64\,mb ram and a 4,3 gb quantum}\quad \texttt{fireball se [1005{\rm -}5]}\)
-
\(\texttt{it in not the exact same problem [18090{\rm -}16]}\)
-
Description (\(\tt{\hbox{dsc}}\))
-
Present objective information about the behavior (or state) of the focus of the collective (which is to say Mozilla).
-
\(\tt{\hbox{mozilla 1998--10--03 crashed [1005{\rm -}1]}}\)
-
\(\texttt{on a freshly booted system, viewer.exe refuses to load anything more than the banner.gifs [4020{\rm -}3]}\)
-
Prescription (\(\tt{\hbox{pre}}\))
-
Present objective information about what the behavior (or state) of the focus of the collective should be. Prescriptions usually appear as contrast to descriptions (descriptions detail how things actually are, and prescriptions how things are expected to be).
-
\(\texttt{i the bookmarks manager should open and have usable menus and editable bookmarks [9380{\rm -}1]}\)
-
\(\texttt{docshell should be setting validate\_always [96480{\rm -}21]}\)
-
Commissives
-
Commit the speaker (to varying levels) to a future action (the action can itself be linguistic or not).
-
Commit (\(\tt{\hbox{com}}\))
-
Commit the speaker to a future course of action.
-
\(\tt{\hbox{i'll take a look at this [15075{\rm -}25]}}\)
-
\(\texttt{on a freshly booted system, viewer.exe refuses to load anything more than the banner.gifs [4020{\rm -}3]}\)
-
Offer (\(\tt{\hbox{off}}\))
-
Indicate that the speaker is willing to perform a future course of action (but does not commit to doing it through the enunciation of the utterance).
-
\(\tt{\hbox{ \!i have a fix for this [2010{\rm -}17]}}\)
-
\( \tt{\hbox{ if necessary, i will file a seperate bug [10050{\rm -}27]}}\)
-
Directives
-
Attempt (to varying levels) to make the hearer perform some action (linguistic or not).
-
Request (\(\tt{\hbox{req}}\))
-
Request that an action be taken.
-
\(\tt{\hbox{could you fix this one? [2010{\rm -}3]}}\)
-
\(\tt{\hbox{ please verify [9045{\rm -}20]}}\)
-
Requirement (\(\tt{\hbox{rqr}}\))
-
Request that a behavior (or state) related to the focus of the collective (Mozilla) be made to happen.
-
\(\tt{\hbox{ at the least, it needs to be corrected soon [7035{\rm -}1]}}\)
-
\(\texttt{\,\,we really need something that works on all platforms \,[97485{\rm -}23]}\)
-
Question (\(\tt{\hbox{que}}\))
-
Request information about the current state of the world.
-
\(\tt{\hbox{how's this look now? [4020{\rm -}12]}}\)
-
\(\tt{\hbox{can you reproduce under windows 98? [12060{\rm -}11]}}\)
-
Suggestion (\(\tt{\hbox{sug}}\))
-
Suggest a course of action.
-
\(\texttt{i think the border code is at the point where it needs a restructuring [2010{\rm -}11]}\)
-
\(\texttt{\,\,rather than just delete after x days, it would be more useful to perform other actions [11055{\rm -}17]}\)
-
Summon (\(\tt{\hbox{sum}}\))
-
Request acknowledgement, with the main purpose of establishing, maintaining, or reestablishing contact.
-
\(\tt{\hbox{eh? [21105{\rm -}17]}}\)
-
\(\tt{\hbox{Simon? [54270{\rm -}27]}}\)
-
Instruction (\(\tt{\hbox{ins}}\))
-
Provide instruction to perform an action (in the way a recipe does). It does not constrain the interlocutor(s) to a course of action, but specifies how to perform the action in case the interlocutor would want to do it.
-
\(\texttt{for definitions of milestones, see: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/milestones/50/m7plan.html, [5025{\rm -}3]}\)
-
\(\tt{\hbox{ \,go to bookmarks on the menu bar [9045{\rm -}4]}}\)
-
Expressives
-
Describe a mental state of the speaker about the state of affairs described by the utterance.
-
Opinion (\(\tt{\hbox{opi}}\))
-
Present a subjective information or a personal position on a state of the world.
-
\(\tt{\hbox{ it's crystal-clear in the css1 spec [16080{\rm -}14]}}<$> <$>\tt{\hbox{ i love it it works great! [19095{\rm -}4]}}\)
-
Expression (\(\tt{\hbox{xpr}}\))
-
Present a (subjective) information about the mental state of the locutor.
-
\(\tt{\hbox{ wish i could test more [16080{\rm -}10]}}<$> <$>\tt{\hbox{ i'd like to think this means the bug is fixed [18090{\rm -}28]}}\)
-
Acknowledgement (\(\tt{\hbox{ack}}\))
-
Acknolwedge a previous utterance.
-
\(\tt{\hbox{ ok [5025{\rm -}4]}}<$> <$>\tt{\hbox{ yeah [17085{\rm -}37]}}\)
-
Agreement (\(\tt{\hbox{agr}}\)) / Disagreement (\(\tt{\hbox{dis}}\))
-
State agreement or disagreement with a previous utterance or a state of the world.
-
\(\tt{\hbox{ i agree with that [109545{\rm -}38]}}<$> <$>\tt{\hbox{ totally disagree with your assessement [42210{\rm -}33]}}\)
-
Exclamation (\(\tt{\hbox{xcl}}\)) / Smiley (\(\tt{\hbox{smi}}\))
-
All forms of exclamations without informational content. Smileys are a specific case.
-
\(\tt{\hbox{ *grumble* [10050{\rm -}8]}}<$> <$>\tt{\hbox{ good luck! [19095{\rm -}42]}}<$> <$>\tt{\hbox{ :-),; -), etc.}}\)
-
Apology (\(\tt{\hbox{apo}}\)) / Greeting (\(\tt{\hbox{grt}}\)) / Thank (\(\tt{\hbox{thx}}\))
-
Respectively present an apology, a greeting, and a thank.
-
\(\tt{\hbox{ i am *really* sorry about the spam [2010{\rm -}29]}}<$> <$>\tt{\hbox{ hey [59270{\rm -}22]}}<$> <$>\tt{\hbox{ many thanks for looking into this [124620{\rm -}113]}}\)
-
Performatives
-
Perform the action represented by the utterance, and bring about the corresponding new state of the world.
-
Action (\(\tt{\hbox{act}}\))
-
Perform an action directly or reports the performance of an action related to the utterance.
-
\(\tt{\hbox{ marking verified [1005{\rm -}14]}}<$> <$>\tt{\hbox{ *** this bug has been marked as a duplicate of X ***}}\)
-
Others
-
Introduction (\(\tt{\hbox{int}}\))
-
Any segment which purpose is to introduce or place in context another utterance.
-
\(\tt{\hbox{ here's an example, from one of my folders: [19095{\rm -}21]}}<$> <$>\tt{\hbox{ as you can see [19095{\rm -}22]}}\)
-
Label (\(\tt{\hbox{lbl}}\))
-
Any segment used to explicitly address another utterance to a specific addressee.
-
\(\tt{\hbox{ Tom}}\) – [...] \(\tt{\hbox{[12060{\rm -}2]}}\)
-
\(\tt{\hbox{ Submitter:}}\) [...] \(\tt{\hbox{ [56615{\rm -}4]}}\)
-
Unknown (\(\tt{\hbox{ukn}}\))
-
Any segment which force is unknown or uncertain.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ripoche, G., Sansonnet, JP. Experiences in Automating the Analysis of Linguistic Interactions for the Study of Distributed Collectives. Comput Supported Coop Work 15, 149–183 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-006-9017-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-006-9017-0