W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-speech-api@w3.org > June 2012

RE: EMMA in Speech API (was RE: Speech API: first editor's draft posted)

From: Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 20:14:35 +0000
To: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, 'Satish S' <satish@google.com>
CC: 'Bjorn Bringert' <bringert@google.com>, 'Glen Shires' <gshires@google.com>, 'Hans Wennborg' <hwennborg@google.com>, "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B236B24082A4094A85003E8FFB8DDC3C1A46D8CA@SOM-EXCH04.nuance.com>
Since there are no objections, I suggest the following be added to the spec:

Section 5.1:
  readonly attribute Document emma;

Section 5.1.6 needs
  emma - EMMA 1.0 (link to http://www.w3.org/TR/emma/) representation of this result.  The contents of this result could vary across UAs and recognition engines, but all implementations MUST at least expose the following:

*       Valid XML document complete with EMMA namespace

*       <emma:interpretation> tag(s) populated with the interpretation (e.g. emma:literal or slot values) and the following attributes: id, emma:process, emma:tokens, emma:medium, emma:mode.

Thanks


From: Young, Milan
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:44 AM
To: 'Deborah Dahl'; 'Satish S'
Cc: 'Bjorn Bringert'; 'Glen Shires'; 'Hans Wennborg'; public-speech-api@w3.org
Subject: RE: EMMA in Speech API (was RE: Speech API: first editor's draft posted)

Thanks Deborah, that's clear.  The upshot is that we don't need to consider #3 as a use case for this specification.  But #1 and #4 still apply.

Any disagreements, or can I start drafting this for the spec?


From: Deborah Dahl [mailto:dahl@conversational-technologies.com]<mailto:[mailto:dahl@conversational-technologies.com]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:10 AM
To: Young, Milan; 'Satish S'
Cc: 'Bjorn Bringert'; 'Glen Shires'; 'Hans Wennborg'; public-speech-api@w3.org<mailto:public-speech-api@w3.org>
Subject: RE: EMMA in Speech API (was RE: Speech API: first editor's draft posted)

I agree that use case 3  (comparing grammars) would be most easily achieved if the recognizer returned the emma:grammar information. However, If I were implementing use case 3 without getting emma:grammar from the recognizer , I think I would manually add the "emma:grammar" attribute to the minimal EMMA provided by the UA (because I know the grammar that I set for the recognizer). Then I would send the augmented EMMA off to the logging/tuning server for later analysis. Even though there's a manual step involved, it would be convenient to be able to add to existing EMMA rather than to construct the whole EMMA manually.

From: Young, Milan [mailto:Milan.Young@nuance.com]<mailto:[mailto:Milan.Young@nuance.com]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 11:37 AM
To: Satish S
Cc: Bjorn Bringert; Deborah Dahl; Glen Shires; Hans Wennborg; public-speech-api@w3.org<mailto:public-speech-api@w3.org>
Subject: RE: EMMA in Speech API (was RE: Speech API: first editor's draft posted)

I'm suggesting that if the UA doesn't integrate with a speech engine that supports EMMA, that it must provide a wrapper so that basic interoperability can be achieved.  In use case #1 (comparing speech engines), that means injecting an <emma:process> tag that contains the name of the underlying speech engine.

I agree that use case #3 could not be achieved without a tight coupling with the engine.  If Deborah is OK with dropping this, so am I.

I don't understand your point about use case #4.  Earlier you were arguing for a null/undefined value if the speech engine didn't natively support EMMA.  Obviously this would prevent the suggested use case.



From: Satish S [mailto:satish@google.com]<mailto:[mailto:satish@google.com]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 8:19 AM
To: Young, Milan
Cc: Bjorn Bringert; Deborah Dahl; Glen Shires; Hans Wennborg; public-speech-api@w3.org<mailto:public-speech-api@w3.org>
Subject: Re: EMMA in Speech API (was RE: Speech API: first editor's draft posted)

Satish, please take a look at the use cases below.  Items #1 and #3 cannot be achieved unless EMMA is always present.

To clarify, are you suggesting that speech recognizers must always return EMMA to the UA, or are you suggesting if they don't the UA should create a wrapper EMMA object with just the utterance(s) and give that to the web page? If it is the latter then #1 and #3 can't be achieved anyway because the UA doesn't have enough information to create an EMMA wrapper with all possible data that the web app may want (specifically it wouldn't know about what to put in the emma:process and emma:fields given in those use cases). And if it is the former that seems out of scope of this CG.

I'd like to add another use case #4.  Application needs to post the recognition result to server before proceeding in the dialog.  The server might be a traditional application server or it could be the controller in an MMI architecture.  EMMA is a standard serialized representation.

If the server supports EMMA then my proposal should work because the web app would be receiving the EMMA Document as is.

--
Cheers
Satish
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 20:15:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 June 2012 20:15:10 GMT