<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W93-0234">
  <Title>Conclusion</Title>
  <Section position="2" start_page="130" end_page="130" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
Conclusion
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Both the analysis and generation of coherent and functional text depend on the coordination of multiple types of structural relations at different granularities. It is not productive to view discourse structure as consisting of a single class of relations: one risks omitting or conflaring relevant yet distinct functionalities and sources of coherence. The author has proposed distinctions between exchange, informative, propositional, contextual, supplemental, and sequential structure \[Suthers 1993a\]: these differentiate types of intentional and rhetorical structure.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Improved taxonomies are possible and may depend on whether one is primarily interested in modeling generation or understanding. Regardless, we need to deal with multiple descriptions when analyzing a text. The community should focus on factoring functionally distinct aspects of discourse structure according to their functionality in generation and understanding processes.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>