W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2004

Thoughts on the relevance of Semantic Interpretation for Speech Recognition Working Draft

From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:51:33 +0100
To: DAWG public list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20040824105133.GF16784@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>


The working draft itsself specifies an ECMAScript object format that is
used to represent input grammars that can be accepted by systems. I dont
think this is particularly relevant to DAWG as-is, but it references
another working group output, EMMA (http://www.w3.org/TR/EMMAreqs/,
http://www.w3.org/TR/emma/) which is a potential output format for SISR,
is ntended to include a query language, and seems very relevant to
DAWG at first glance.

They have concerns about RDF efficiency (and the lack of a query
language), so there are 3 distinct syntaxes for EMMA docuements, one
pure EMMA-schema XML, one mixed EMMA+RDF and one pure RDF.

Hopefully we can help with the last one by providing a query language for
the RDF documents and they suggest that the mixed XML+RDF documents can be
translated into pure RDF with an XSLT transform, though I couldn't find a
pointer to a transform document.

The native query language for EMMA is XPointer based, but it works over
thier XML schema only, not addressing the embedded RDF fragments.

- Steve
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2004 10:51:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:44 UTC