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: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:27:24 +0300
Message-ID: <4FD0C85C.3000404@helsinki.fi>
To: Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com>
CC: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, Satish S <satish@google.com>, Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>, "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>
On 06/07/2012 04:52 PM, Hans Wennborg wrote:
> I still don't think UAs that use a speech engine that doesn't support
> EMMA should be required to provide a non-null emma attribute.
>
> I don't think the vast majority of web developers will care about this.
>
> For existing applications that rely on EMMA, there would already be
> significant work involved to port to the web and this API. For those
> cases, checking for the null-case, and wrapping the results into EMMA
> using JavaScript shouldn't be a big deal.
>
> If there turns out to be a large demand from real web apps for the
> attribute to always be non-null, it would be easy to change the spec
> to require that. Doing it the other way around, allowing web apps to
> rely on it now, and then change it to sometimes return null would be
> much harder.
>
> Thanks,
> Hans

It makes no sense to have this kind of optional features.
Either EMMA must be there or it must not (either one is ok to me).


-Olli




>
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com> wrote:
>> 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 Ė 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, thatís clear.  The upshot is that we donít 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]
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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 ďemma:grammarĒ 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 thereís 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]
>> 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
>> Subject: RE: EMMA in Speech API (was RE: Speech API: first editor's draft
>> posted)
>>
>>
>>
>> Iím suggesting that if the UA doesnít 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 donít understand your point about use case #4.  Earlier you were arguing
>> for a null/undefined value if the speech engine didnít natively support
>> EMMA.  Obviously this would prevent the suggested use case.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Satish S [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
>> 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 Thursday, 7 June 2012 15:28:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 June 2012 15:28:05 GMT