Anna Jordanous edited serendipity-in-computational-context.tex  about 9 years ago

Commit id: f2df96bf95001774baab9aa8048b57c274790652

deletions | additions      

       

%% Workshop ``technologically unrealistic'' or similar, so let's try to  %% make sure we're not overpromising. I think the other paper makes it  %% all fairly realistic.]}  To evaluate our computational framework in usage, we apply a thought experiments around scenarios where there is high potential for serendipity  %% In \cite{poetry-workshop}, we investigate the feasibility of using%%  designs of this sort in multi-agent systems that learn by sharing and%%  discussing partial understandings. This %%This  earlier paper remains broadly %% indicative, however, and the ideas it describes can see considerable  %% benefit from the more formal thinking we develop in the current work.  % \citeA{poetry-workshop} describes a Writers Workshop for poetry  %systems.   Following \citeA{gabriel2002writer}  % we described a template for a pattern  % language for interactions in a computational poetry workshop, closely  \footnote{The thought experiment outlined here follows the descriptions by \citeA{gabriel2002writer} of Writers Workshops. Following \citeA{gabriel2002writer},  we define a \emph{Workshop} to be an activity for two or more agents consisting of the following steps:%itemize?  {\tt presentation}, {\tt listening}, {\tt feedback}, {\tt questions}, and {\tt reflections}. In general, the first and most important  feature of {\tt feedback} is for the listener to say what they heard;  in other words, what they find in the presented work. In some  settings this is augmented with {\tt suggestions}. After any {\tt  questions} from the author, the commentators may make {\tt replies}  to offer clarification. We return to discuss Writers Workshops and serendipity in Section \ref{future}.}  This is how these steps map into the diagram we introduced in Section \ref{sec:background}:  \input{ww-schematic-tikz}