Natural Language, Mixed-Initiative Personal Assistant Agents

The increasing popularity and use of personal voice assistant technologies, such as Siri and Google Now, is driving and expanding progress toward the long-term and lofty goal of using artificial intelligence to build human-computer dialog systems capable of understanding natural language. While dialog-based systems such as Siri support utterances communicated through natural language, they are limited in the flexibility they afford to the user in interacting with the system and, thus, support primarily action-requesting and information-seeking tasks. Mixed-initiative interaction, on the other hand, is a flexible interaction technique where the user and the system act as equal participants in an activity, and is often exhibited in human-human conversations. In this paper, we study user support for mixed-initiative interaction with dialog-based systems through natural language using a bag-of-words model and k-nearest-neighbor classifier. We study this problem in the context of a toolkit we developed for automated, mixed-initiative dialog system construction, involving a dialog authoring notation and management engine based on lambda calculus, for specifying and implementing task-based, mixed-initiative dialogs. We use ordering at Subway through natural language, human-computer dialogs as a case study. Our results demonstrate that the dialogs authored with our toolkit support the end user\u27s completion of a natural language, human-computer dialog in a mixed-initiative fashion. The use of natural language in the resulting mixed-initiative dialogs afford the user the ability to experience multiple self-directed paths through the dialog and makes the flexibility in communicating user utterances commensurate with that in dialog completion paths---an aspect missing from commercial assistants like Siri

Marina site suitablity tool : final project report

In coordination with the Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Department of Environmental Quality, the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC), the Center for Coastal Resources Management at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) was contracted to develop a tool for local governments that would assist in the decision-making process for marina development. In particular, the agencies wanted to develop a visual representation of the VMRC Criteria for the Siting of Marinas or Community Facilities for Boat Mooring. This was accomplished by gathering available data sets and developing geographic information system (GIS) data layers that can be used to determine the suitability of a shoreline for marina development. Using shoreline areas demarcated in increments of 600 m (0.4 mile) longshore, this GIS modeling effort results in a mapping scheme showing color-coded segments for habitat, design, and water quality criteria. A summary map was also developed. The summary map should be the most appropriate to use in decision-making as it contains all information from the other three maps. It is anticipated that local and state agencies will utilize this tool when developing land use plans, reviewing permits, siting public access points, and considering options for economic development

Summary Tables: City of Chesapeake, Virginia Shoreline Inventory Report

The Shoreline Inventory Summary Tables quantify observed conditions based on river systems, such as the combined length of linear features (e.g. shoreline miles surveyed, miles of bulkhead and revetment), the total number of point features (e.g. docks, boathouses, boat ramps) & total acres of polygon features (tidal marshes)

City of Suffolk Shoreline Management Plan

City of Suffolk understands that water resources are an integral part of the quality of life for its residents. The City’s Comprehensive Plan states that management of development and land disturbing activities directly affect the quality of surface water, drinking water, fisheries and wetland habitat (City of Suffolk Department of Planning, 2006). The shores of Suffolk range from exposed open river to very sheltered creeks, and the nature of shoreline change varies accordingly. While the City’s Comprehensive Plan provides general guidance for shore erosion control, a shoreline management plan is useful for evaluating and planning shoreline management strategies appropriate for all the creeks and rivers of Suffolk. It ties the physical and hydrodynamic elements of tidal shorelines to the various shoreline protection strategies

Gloucester County Shoreline Management Plan

With approximately 85 percent of the Chesapeake Bay shoreline privately owned, a critical need existsto increase awareness of erosion potential and the choices available for shore stabilization that maintainsecosystem services at the land-water interface. The National Academy of Science published a report thatspotlights the need to develop a shoreline management framework (NRC, 2007). It suggests that improvingawareness of the choices available for erosion control, considering cumulative consequences of erosionmitigation approaches, and improving shoreline management planning are key elements to minimizingadverse environmental impacts associated with mitigating shore erosion.Actions taken by waterfront property owners to stabilize the shoreline can affect the health of the Bayas well as adjacent properties for decades. With these long-term implications, managers at the local levelshould have a more proactive rolein how shorelines are managed.Preserving its natural environmentis a local priority particularly inregard to future developmentconsiderations (Gloucester County,2016). The shores of Gloucesterrange from exposed open-riverto very sheltered creeks, and thenature of shoreline change variesaccordingly (Figure 1-1). Thisshoreline management plan isuseful for evaluating and planningshoreline management strategiesappropriate for all the creeksand rivers of Gloucester. It tiesthe physical and hydrodynamicelements of tidal shorelines tothe various shoreline protectionstrategies

York County Shoreline Management Plan

With approximately 85 percent of the Chesapeake Bay shoreline privately owned, a critical need existsto increase awareness of erosion potential and the choices available for shore stabilization that maintainecosystem services at the land-water interface. The National Academy of Science published a report thatspotlights the need to develop a shoreline management framework (NRC, 2007). It suggests that improv-ing awareness of the choices available for erosion control, considering cumulative consequences of erosion mitigation approaches, and improving shoreline management planning are key elements to minimizing adverse environmental impacts associated with mitigating shore erosion

Stafford County Shoreline Management Plan

With approximately 85 percent of the Chesapeake Bay shoreline privately owned, a critical need exists to increase awareness of erosion potential and the choices available for shore stabilization that maintains ecosystem services at the land-water interface. The National Academy of Science published a report that spotlights the need to develop a shoreline management framework (NRC, 2007). It suggests that improving awareness of the choices available for erosion control, considering cumulative consequences of erosion mitigation approaches, and improving shoreline management planning are key elements to minimizing adverse environmental impacts associated with mitigating shore erosion. Actions taken by waterfront property owners to stabilize the shoreline can affect the health of the Bay as well as adjacent properties for decades. With these long-term implications, managers at the local level should have a more proactive role in how shorelines are managed. The County recognizes that development has led to increased runoff and non-point source pollution and identifies the need to guide efforts to maintain water quality, preserve wildlife habitats, and minimize the risk of natural hazards (Stafford County Planning Commission, 2010). The shores of Stafford range from exposed open-river to very sheltered creeks, and the nature of shoreline change varies accordingly (Figure 1-1). This shoreline management plan is useful for evaluating and planning shoreline management strategies appropriate for all the creeks and rivers of Stafford. It ties the physical and hydrodynamic elements of tidal shorelines to the various shoreline protection strategie

Fairfax County Shoreline Management Plan

Much of the Fairfax County’s tidal shoreline is suitable for a “Living Shoreline” approach to shoreline management. The Commonwealth of Virginia has adopted policy stating that Living Shorelines are the preferred alternative for erosion control along tidal waters in Virginia (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/ legp504.exe?111+ful+CHAP0885+pdf). The policy defines a Living Shoreline as …”a shoreline management practice that provides erosion control and water quality benefits; protects, restores or enhances natural shoreline habitat; and maintains coastal processes through the strategic placement of plants, stone, sand fill, and other structural and organic materials.” The key to effective implementation of this policy at the local level is understanding what constitutes a Living Shoreline practice and where those practices are appropriate. This management plan and its use in zoning, planning, and permitting will provide the guidance necessary for landowners and local planners to understand the alternatives for erosion control and to make informed shoreline management decisions. The recommended shoreline strategies can provide effective shore protection but also have the added distinction of creating, preserving, and enhancing wetland, beach, and dune habitat. These habitats are essential to addressing the protection and restoration of water quality and natural resources within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The final Fairfax County Shoreline Management Plan is an educational and management reference for the City and its landholders

Prince George County Shoreline Management Plan

Much of Prince George County’s shoreline is suitable for a “Living Shoreline” approach to shoreline management. The Commonwealth of Virginia has adopted policy stating that Living Shorelines are the preferred alternative for erosion control along tidal waters in Virginia (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi‐bin/legp504.exe?111+ful+CHAP0885+pdf). The policy defines a Living Shoreline as …”a shoreline management practice that provides erosion control and water quality benefits; protects, restores or enhances natural shoreline habitat; and maintains coastal processes through the strategic placement of plants, stone, sand fill, and other structural and organic materials.” The key to effective implementation of this policy at the local level is understanding what constitutes a Living Shoreline practice and where those practices are appropriate. This management plan and its use in zoning, planning, and permitting will provide the guidance necessary for landowners and local planners to understand the alternatives for erosion control and to make informed shoreline management decisions. The recommended shoreline strategies can provide effective shore protection but also have the added distinction of creating, preserving, and enhancing wetland, beach, and dune habitat. These habitats are essential to addressing the protection and restoration of water quality and natural resources within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The final Prince George County Shoreline Management Plan is an educational and management reference for the County and its landholders

Westmoreland County Shoreline Management Plan

With approximately 85 percent of the Chesapeake Bay shoreline privately owned, a critical need exists to increase awareness of erosion potential and the choices available for shore stabilization that maintains ecosystem services at the land-water interface. The National Academy of Science recently published a report that spotlights the necessity of developing a shoreline management framework (NRC, 2007). It suggests that improving awareness of the choices available for erosion control, considering cumulative consequences of erosion mitigation approaches, and improving shoreline management planning are key elements to minimizing adverse environmental impacts associated with mitigating shore erosion