<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W01-1627">
  <Title>Dialogue tagsets in oncology</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
2 Parameters for dialogue tagging
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Complete and accurate tagging of dialogue must encode a number of independent aspects of each utterance. These are represented as \layers&amp;quot; in the DAMSL system (Core &amp; Allen 1997).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Form-based tags (question, statement) are supplemented with diacritics indicating other types of information, such as task-management or communication-management.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> The four oncology dialogue tagging systems considered here all share this basic principle, although they di er in the speci cs. Butow et al (1995:1115) cite the recognition as early as 1983 of \layers of meaning ... such as the content, the process, the emotion and the purpose&amp;quot;. Their own CN-LOGIT system encodes three \dimensions&amp;quot;: \source&amp;quot; (who is speaking), \process&amp;quot; (questions, responses, initiated statements), and \content&amp;quot;. A complete dialogue can be mapped into a three-dimensional information space, and measures can be applied such as how much time was spent in each cell of the cube. Ong et al (1998) use the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS). Each utterance in a dialogue is categorised, and also rated on ve distinct \global a ect&amp;quot; scales. The Medical Interaction Process System (MIPS) of Ford et al (2000) also stresses the multi-dimensional nature of dialogue annotation, using fteen \content codes&amp;quot; and eight \affective modes&amp;quot;. PMG (Maguire &amp; Faulkner 1988; Maguire p.c.) have separate tagsets for Form, Function, Content, Level, Cue, Cue Management, Blocking, and Focus.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> One can see an implicit consensus here that (to use NLP terms) syntactic form, overt semantic content, pragmatic force, and cognitive a ect are distinct and are all signi cant. The di ering degrees of detail and prominence they receive in the di erent systems are discussed under those headings in the next section.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>