Three computer-based models of storytelling: BRUTUS, MINSTREL and MEXICA

Knowledge-Based Systems

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 15-29

  Pérez y Pérez, Rafael ^a   Sharples, Mike ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

BRUTUS; C creativity; Computer based storytelling; Content predictability; Creative distance; Creativity; Engagement; MEXICA; MINSTREL; Predefined structures; Reflection; Story predictability; Structure predictability; Transform Recall Adapt Methods

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAM LISTINGS; DATA STRUCTURES; DATABASE SYSTEMS; PSYCHOLOGY COMPUTING; TECHNICAL WRITING;

COMPUTER BASED MODELS; CONTENT PREDICTABILITY; CREATIVE DISTANCE; PREDEFINED STRUCTURES; STRUCTURE PREDICTABILITY;

KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS;

EID: 0344924954     PISSN: 09507051     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0950-7051(03)00048-0     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Klein S. Control of style with a generative grammar. Language. 41:1965;619-631.
2. J.R. Meehan, The Metanovel: writing stories by computer, PhD Thesis, Yale University, 1976.
3. M. Sharples, Poetry from LOGO, DAI working paper no 30, University of Edinburgh, 1978.
4. Meehan J. TALE-SPIN. Shank R.C., Riesbeck C.K. Inside Computer Understanding: Five Programs plus Miniatures. 1981;197-226 Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
5. Lakoff G.P. Structural complexity in fairy tales. The study of man. 1:1972;128-190.
6. Rumelhart D.E. Notes on a schema for stories. Bobrow D.G., Collins A.M. Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science. 1975;Academic Press, New York.
7. Mandler J.M., Johnson N.S. Remembrance of things parsed: story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology. 9:1977;111-151.
8. Black J.B., Wilensky R. An evaluation of story grammars. Cognitive Science. 3:1979;213-230.
9. Wilensky R. Story grammar versus story points. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 6:1983;579-623.
10. Garnham A. What's wrong with story grammars. Cognition. 15:1983;145-154.
11. Pemberton L. A modular approach to story generation. in: 4th European ACL, Manchester, UK. 1989;. pp. 217-224.
12. Kant I. Genius gives the rules. Rothenberg A., Hausman C.R. The Creative Question. 1976;37-42 Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
13. Rothenberg A., Hausman C.R. The Creative Question. 1976;Duke University Press, Durham.
14. Boden M.A. Could a robot be creative - and would we know? Ford K.M., Glymour C., Hayes P.J. Android Epistemology. 1995;51-72 AAAI Press(location)/ The MIT Press.
15. Sharples M. How We Write: Writing as Creative Design. 1999;Routledge, London.
16. Boden M.A. The Creative Mind. 1992;Abacus, London.
17. Bringsjord S., Ferrucci D.A. Artificial Intelligence and Literary Creativity. Inside the Mind of BRUTUS, a Storytelling Machine. 2000;Erlbaum (Lawrence), Hillsdale.
18. Laird J., Newell A., Rosenbloom P. SOAR: An architecture for general intelligence. Artificial Intelligence. 33:1987;1-64.
19. Charniak E., McDermott D. Introduction to Artificial Intelligence. 1985;Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
20. Turner S.R. The Creative Process: A Computer Model of Storytelling. 1994;Erlbaum (Lawrence), Hillsdale.
21. S.R. Turner, MINSTREL: A computer model of creativity and storytelling, PhD Dissertation, University of California LA, 1993.
22. R. Pérez y Pérez, MEXICA: a computer model of creativity in writing, PhD thesis, University of Sussex, 1999.
23. Pérez y Pérez R., Sharples M. MEXICA: A computer model of a cognitive account of creative writing. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence. 13:2001;119-139.
24. Bremond C. La lógica de los posibles narrativos (trad.). Análisis Estructural del Relato. 1996;Ediciones Coyoacán, México DF. pp. 99-122; Originally published as La logique des possible narratifs, Communications 8, 1966, pp. 60-76.
25. Casebourne I. Candy L., Edmonds E. The Grandmother Program: A Hybrid System for Automated Story Generation. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium of Creativity and Cognition. 1996;146-155 Loughborough, England.