JPS61107469A - Document editing device - Google Patents

Abstract

PURPOSE:To permit effective document editing by presuming intended editing behavior of vague editing indication information, inputting the fact if the executed result is different from the intention, and then doing over again the presuming and execution of editing. CONSTITUTION:When an editing indication input 11 is input, an inference section in a device is activated. After initial setting of an inference parameter is done first, detailed editing instructions are derived according to inference regulations (13). Editing indications which are the result of the inference are executed (14). After the result of the execution is displayed on a display (15), the fitness of the inference is input (16). If it is not OK (17-No), updating (18) of the inference parameter is done, new editing indications are derived, the execution being done over again. If the facet that the inference is right is input, the editing result by the associated editing indication is defined.

Description

[Detailed Description of the Invention] [Technical Field of the Invention] The present invention provides a document editing method that can effectively edit a document by estimating the editing action intended by ambiguous editing instruction information input to document information. Regarding equipment.

[Technical background of the invention and its problems]

In recent years, with the development and spread of artificial intelligence and knowledge engineering, various information processing systems that incorporate these techniques have been developed. For example, by introducing inference, which is one of the important concepts of artificial intelligence mentioned above, the creation and creation of documents, programs, data, etc.
It is being considered to build a document editing system that performs editing.

By the way, the above reasoning is divided into two types: deductive reasoning that derives individual facts (e.g., theorems) from general rules (e.g., axioms), and conversely, deriving from a set of facts (e.g., empirical knowledge) between them. It is broadly divided into inductive reasoning, which derives general rules that hold true (e.g., general knowledge).

However, in a document editing system (editor) that has introduced rope inference, for example, an instruction to [delete] for a sentence such as ``Two stalks] J Hiroo Danyu, TjQ Sumibe 3 Buddhist craftsmen'' specifies the deletion range. If the sentence is entered without proper explanation, inference rules such as (there is a grammatical error) → (the incorrect part will be subject to proofreading) will be used to infer the part to be deleted, and "This sentence contains There is an error.'' In other words, according to the system's inference rules, from editing instruction information containing ambiguity,
It becomes possible to estimate the editing action originally intended by the information and execute it.

However, the above-mentioned [delete] instruction may be intended to delete only a specific character indicated by a cursor, etc., or may be intended to delete the entire sentence, or even delete an underlined character in the sentence. There are also cases where the user intends to delete the file. Therefore, there is a possibility that the document editing will be executed in a manner different from the original intention.

On the other hand, when creating the document ``Weather of various places'' shown in Figure 5(b) from the document ``Weather of various places'' shown in Figure 5(a), an editor that has introduced inductive reasoning can write, for example, ■ Sapporo 25 ,5 21.4 Cloudy → Sapporo: Cloudy■ Tokyo 28-. 9 24.0 Cloudy → Tokyo: From the two corrections of cloudy, Ku place name><Real number 1><Real number 2 N <Weather> → <Place name>:
<Weather> A pattern conversion rule is inductively inferred, and based on the inference result, the next pattern that appears is automatically modified to ``Osaka: Sunny'' or by the operator. This can be done with confirmation.

By the way, in general, a lot of information is required to perform inductive reasoning reliably. However, if we try to provide a large amount of information necessary to perform inductive reasoning reliably, most of the document editing work may end, and the point of introducing inductive reasoning is lost. For this reason, in general, inductively inferred rules often contain a number of ambiguities, and the probability that the intention for document editing will be executed correctly is higher than the above-mentioned inference. smaller than the installed system.

In this way, a document editing system that incorporates inference greatly contributes to improving usability, but if the inference is incorrectly performed, it can lead to a decrease in usability. have.

[Purpose of the invention]

The present invention was made in consideration of these circumstances, and its purpose is to provide a practical method that enables efficient document editing by effectively introducing inference without deteriorating usability. The purpose of the present invention is to provide a document editing device with high functionality.

[Summary of the invention]

The present invention includes a means for estimating an editing action indicated by editing instruction information inputted to document information, executing the estimated editing action on the document information, and a means for estimating an editing action indicated by editing instruction information inputted to document information, A means for inputting information to the effect that the editing action is different from the intended editing action is provided, and when this information is input, the editing action is estimated and executed based on the editing instruction information, for example, the editing action that was previously estimated is It is designed to perform repeated control except for the following.

In other words, when the document editing action based on the inference result differs from what was originally intended, the inference process is performed again by inputting information indicating the difference, a different inference result is derived, and this is executed. be.

[Effects of the Invention] Thus, according to the present invention, even if the input editing instruction information is ambiguous, the document editing action is inferred from the editing instruction information and the document editing is executed, thereby improving the usability. becomes possible. In addition, even if the document editing action performed on behalf of the device is different from the intention of the device user, the inference process is performed again from the input editing instruction information according to a simple instruction to obtain a different inference result (document editing action). By doing this, its usability will not be compromised.

Also, the reasoning system does not require advanced reasoning ability.
There are also effects such as being able to easily construct a system just by preparing simple inference rules.

(Embodiment of the Invention) Hereinafter, an embodiment of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings.

FIG. 1 is a schematic configuration diagram of the embodiment apparatus, and FIG. 2 shows an example of the flow of the inference process.

The document editing section 1 executes editing processing of a document stored in the document storage section 4 under the control of the document editing control section 2 or the inference section 3. The document editing control section 2 reads out a document to be edited from the document storage section 4 to the document editing section 1, for example, according to various document editing instruction information input from the keyboard 5 via the input side t[m6, or The specified editing process is applied to this editing target document i'.

The document information edited in the document editing section 1 in this manner is displayed on the display 8 via the output control section 7 as appropriate and presented to the operator.

Therefore, when the document editing instruction information input to the document editing control section 2 includes ambiguity, that is, when the input editing instruction information does not specify an editing action on the document, the inference section 3 is driven by this. Ru. Reasoning part 3
3 refers to the inference rules stored in the inference rule storage section 9, such as those shown in FIG. 3, to infer the editing action intended by the input editing instruction information. This reasoning generally leads to multiple editing actions. The inference unit 3 obtains, for example, the most probabilistically most probable inference result as the editing action intended by the editing instruction information according to the inference rule, and controls the document editing unit 1 in accordance with this to execute the editing action. ing. The execution results are then presented to the operator via the display 8.
, , 5° However, if the editing action of the document based on this inference is different from the editing action intended by the operator in the editing instruction information, for example, the keyboard 5
Information indicating that the editing action is different is input by operating a switch provided on the screen. When this information is input, under the control of the document editing control section 2, the inference section 3 again infers the editing action intended by the input editing instruction information.

This second inference process is performed excluding the previously inferred result. Therefore, an editing act that is different from the results of the previous inference and argument can be inferred.

The document is edited again according to the editing action inferred in this way, and the editing results are displayed again.

This process is repeated until the inferred editing action matches the editing action intended by the input editing instruction information. In other words, as shown in Fig. 2, when an editing instruction containing ambiguity is input (step 11), for example, inference parameters are initialized (step 12), editing instructions are inferred according to these parameters (step 13), and the inference is made. The result is executed (Step 14), the execution result is output (Step 15), and an instruction from the operator regarding whether the output is acceptable is awaited (Step 16). If the result is unsatisfactory (step 17), the inference parameters are updated (step 18) and the process returns to step 13 to obtain another inference result via step 14. This process (steps 14 to 18) is repeatedly executed until a satisfactory editing result is obtained, and the inference process is ended (step 17).

By the way, the inference rules for the editing action for an ambiguous editing instruction such as r delete J are given as shown in FIG. In other words, ■ [There is a grammatical error in the character string to be edited] → (delete the error part) ■ [There is a grammatical error in the character string to be edited and a modifier is added to the character string] → (Error (Delete the part and modifier) ■ [A modifier is added to the IIA collection target character string] → (Delete the modifier) etc. In other words, an editing action is given to edit the content based on the editing instruction information and the document information content to be edited. For example, if the document to be edited is given as "R Patent Claim Book Editing System" as shown in FIG. An error is detected in "Patent Claim Dan" from the grammatical rules of the character string, and it is inferred that the editing action is intended to delete the grammatical error part.

Then, according to this inference result, as shown in Figure 4(b), we obtain a document editing result of `` ・の の 訳 System j''.On the other hand, if the editing intention is to delete the underline, the above-mentioned Information indicating that the editing action is different is input.

Upon receiving this information, the inference process obtains the next inference result, for example, "deletion of modifier", and according to this, the inference process shown in FIG. 4(C)
Delete the underline as shown in , and obtain the editing result "Claims statement@editing system". by this"
From the ambiguous editing instruction "Delete", the intended editing action will be executed.

In addition, even if the document editing shown in Fig. 5 (,a) and (b) is done,
Similarly, the editing action for the document is inferred from the example of the editing device and executed.

As described above, according to the present device, even if the editing instruction information specified for a document is ambiguous, the document is edited according to the editing action inferred from the editing instruction information. In addition, if the inferred editing action is different from the originally intended editing action, simply inputting information to that effect will infer another editing action and execute the document editing, so you can easily perform the intended editing action. It becomes possible to obtain.

Therefore, according to the present device, it is possible to effectively perform document editing, which generally involves the troublesome operation of many keys, simply by inputting simple editing instruction information.

Therefore, its usability can be dramatically improved. Moreover, since the inferred editing action can be easily changed, there is no need to construct a sophisticated inference system from the beginning, and the system configuration can be simplified. .

Note that the present invention is not limited to the embodiments described above. For example, the inference algorithm for editing actions, the inference rules used in inference processing, etc. may be determined according to the device specifications. Also, the types of editing commands, etc. may be changed as appropriate.

In short, the present invention can be implemented with various modifications without departing from the gist thereof.

[Brief explanation of the drawing]

FIG. 1 is a schematic configuration diagram of a device according to an embodiment of the present invention, FIG. 2 is a diagram showing the flow of inference processing in the implementation device, FIG. 3 is a diagram showing an example of inference rules, and FIGS. The figures are diagrams showing examples of an original document and an edited document, respectively. 1... Document editing section, 2... Document editing control section, 3...
- Reasoning section, 4... Document storage section, 5... Keyboard,
6... Input control unit, 7... Output control unit, 8... Display, 9... Inference rule storage unit. Applicant's agent Patent attorney Takehiko Suzue Figure 2

Claims (3)

[Claims] (1) means for estimating the editing action indicated by the editing instruction information inputted to the document information; means for executing the estimated editing action on the document information; and means for repeatedly controlling the estimation and execution of the editing action based on the editing instruction information when inputting this information. document editing device. (2) The document editing device according to claim 1, wherein the repeated estimation of editing actions indicated by the editing instruction information is performed excluding previously estimated editing actions. (3) The document editing device according to claim 1, wherein the repetitive estimation of the editing action indicated by the editing instruction information is performed based on grammatical rules for character strings of document information, rules for modifiers, etc. .