W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dcci-editors@w3.org > November 2007

RE: LCWD comments on the DCCI specification from the Multimodal Interaction WG

From: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:39:35 -0500
To: "'waters Keith'" <keith.waters@orange-ftgroup.com>, <public-dcci-editors@w3.org>, <w3c-mmi-wg@w3.org>, <member-uwa@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <006301c82553$0047d500$6701a8c0@chimaera>

Hi Keith,
Thank you very much for your response to our comments on the LCWD of
the DCCI specification. After discussing these with the UWA WG at the
Boston Technical Plenary, we agree that these responses address our
concerns. However, with respect to point 1.2, because distributed 
applications are very important to the MMIWG, we would be very grateful 
for any additional information you might be able to provide related to 
your comment, "There is the potential that other remote event standards 
could be applied to DCCI events in the future."

Best regards, and looking forward to continued future collaboration,

Debbie Dahl, MMIWG Chair, for the MMIWG

> -----Original Message-----
> From: waters Keith [mailto:keith.waters@orange-ftgroup.com] 
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 3:04 PM
> To: public-dcci-editors@w3.org; w3c-mmi-wg@w3.org; member-uwa@w3c.org
> Cc: Deborah Dahl
> Subject: LCWD comments on the DCCI specification from the 
> Multimodal Interaction WG
> 
> Hi Debbie and Raj,
> 
> thank you for your comments [1] on the LCWD of DCCI draft 04 July 2007
> [2].
> 
> What follows is a breakdown set of responses:
> 
> -------------------------------
> 1. Registration for events:
> 
> 1.1 Notification of Events ( Section 1.1 Uses for DCI ):
> 
> "...It also provides notifications when properties change.."
> 
> While the specification describes use of DOM3 events, given that DCCI
> will have a different root-element ( namespace), it is not clear how
> components that want the notifications register for the
> same..
> 
> -------------------------------
> 
> RESPONSE: The registration for events is performed on the DCCI node,
> with addEventListener() or addEventListenerNS().  The namespace of the
> event itself for the dci-prop-change event is to be
> http://www.w3.org/2007/dci per
> http://www.w3.org/TR/DPF#event-dci-prop-change and
> http://www.w3.org/TR/DPF#sec-conformance.  The changed DCCI node will
> be the target of the event, and has its own namespace.  This is
> unrelated to any namespace associated with the registering source.
> 
> -------------------------------
> 
> 1.2 MMI Architecture allows Interaction Manager (IM) and Modality
> Components( MC) to be distributed. And except in the case of
> nested-modality components, modality components communicate with each
> other only through the Interaction Manager. Given this principle of
> MMI architecture, MMI authors would be required under the proposed
> DCCI spec, to implement another DCCI-interface component to register
> and obtain the local DCI events to pass on to IM for every device on
> which any modality component is running..
> 
> For example, a device-client could be getting the text-to-speech
> streamed from a TTS server. Now, if the user mutes the speaker on the
> device, an event gets generated on the local device through DCI, but
> the IM running on the server (a different device) will not get this
> event to signal the TTS-component to stop streaming audio, as it will
> not have a way to remotely register and get this event from the
> device. So, under the proposed specification, an MMI author would be
> forced to implement another MMI component just for passing on DCI
> events to the IM. Please, note that the local Modality Component
> cannot directly do this job, as the local Modality Components are to
> be implemented as black-boxes and as such cannot snoop on these events
> and determine which ones should be passed-on to the Interaction
> Manager.
> 
> We would like to hear from DCI-WG on how this remote-registration for
> events could be done, under the the current DCI framework.
> 
> -------------------------------
> 
> RESPONSE: There is no facility in place for remote event registration
> associated with DCCI and is therefore this is considered out-of-scope
> for DCCI at this time. There is the potential that other remote event
> standards could be applied to DCCI events in the future.  At that time
> DCCI can review adherence to that specification.
> 
> -------------------------------
> 
> 2. Section 2.1 of DCCI specification on Interfaces :
> 
> "....DCCI is an interface that focuses on making properties from the
> delivery context available to code executing within a web client
> [GLOSS]...
> 
> The glossary referenced above DOES NOT contain definition of
> web-client, but client as described below :
> 
> Client ( www.w3.org/TR/di-gloss)
>      The role adopted by an application when it is retrieving and/or
> rendering resources or resource manifestations.
>      This term was taken verbatim from Web Characterization 
> Terminology
> & Definitions Sheet.
> 
> Further, from MMI perspective clients needs not be web-clients (
> meaning implementing HTTP protocol for communication with servers..)
> 
> -------------------------------
> 
> RESPONSE: Thanks. There is a editorial correction to be made here. The
> reference to "web client" and "web server" in section 2.1 should be
> changed to "client" and "server".
> 
> -------------------------------
> 
> Hopefully this address your concerns.  If not, please respond by Nov
> 9th.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -Keith Waters
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dcci-editors/2007Aug/ 
> 0000.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/DPF/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
Received on Monday, 12 November 2007 17:39:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:03 GMT