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: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:39:33 -0400
To: "'Satish S'" <satish@google.com>, "'Young, Milan'" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Cc: "'Hans Wennborg'" <hwennborg@google.com>, <olli@pettay.fi>, "'Bjorn Bringert'" <bringert@google.com>, "'Glen Shires'" <gshires@google.com>, <public-speech-api@w3.org>
Message-ID: <03d701cd47f9$2a3ad560$7eb08020$@conversational-technologies.com>
Hi Satish,

All of the EMMA attributes that have been proposed for the use cases we've
discussed are already part of the EMMA 1.0 standard. That said, the
Multimodal Interaction Working Group is always interested in receiving
comments and suggestions that relate to possible new EMMA capabilities,
which can be posted to www-multimodal@w3.org. 

Regards,

Debbie

 

From: Satish S [mailto:satish@google.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 12:18 PM
To: Young, Milan
Cc: Hans Wennborg; Deborah Dahl; olli@pettay.fi; Bjorn Bringert; Glen
Shires; public-speech-api@w3.org
Subject: Re: EMMA in Speech API (was RE: Speech API: first editor's draft
posted)

 

If there are EMMA attributes that are mandatory for specific use cases, we
should post to the MMI WG and get those changes into the EMMA recommendation
published at http://www.w3.org/TR/emma/. I'm sure they will be interested in
incorporating them and Deborah Dahl can help as well since she is one of the
authors.

 

Cheers
Satish



On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
wrote:

Hello Hans,

I did respond to this thread, but it got forked.  The upshot is that we
should go with my second (most recent) proposal, not my first proposal (that
Satish supported).  The reason is that the first proposal did not allow us
to achieve the interoperability use cases that Deborah put forward.

To addresses Satish's most recent argument, the likely hood of an
application failing because the EMMA result contains an extra couple
attributes is small.  This is because 1) most EMMA implementations support
these attributes already, 2) we're dealing with XML which abstracts
low-level parsing, 3) If an application did fail, the fix would be trivial.

Thanks



-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Wennborg [mailto:hwennborg@google.com]

Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 2:56 AM
To: Deborah Dahl

Cc: Satish S; olli@pettay.fi; Young, Milan; Bjorn Bringert; Glen Shires;
public-speech-api@w3.org
Subject: Re: EMMA in Speech API (was RE: Speech API: first editor's draft
posted)

Do we have agreement on this? If there are no objections, I'll update the
spec with the text Satish posted on the 8th (with DOMString substituted with
Document):

----
Addition to SpeechRecognitionResult (section 5.1)

 readonly attribute Document emma;

And the corresponding addition to 5.1.6:
 emma - A string representation of the XML-based <link>EMMA 1.0</link>
result. (link points to http://www.w3.org/TR/emma/
----

Thanks,
Hans

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Deborah Dahl
<dahl@conversational-technologies.com> wrote:
> I agree that Document would be more useful.
>
>
>
> From: Satish S [mailto:satish@google.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 5:18 AM
> To: Hans Wennborg
> Cc: olli@pettay.fi; Young, Milan; Deborah Dahl; Bjorn Bringert; Glen
> Shires; public-speech-api@w3.org
>
>
> Subject: Re: EMMA in Speech API (was RE: Speech API: first editor's
> draft
> posted)
>
>
>
> Yes that is correct, it should be
>
>   readonly attribute Document emma;
>
>
> Cheers
> Satish
>
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com>
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Satish S <satish@google.com> wrote:
>> In any case, looks like there is enough interest both from speech &
>> browser vendors to have this attribute always non-null. So I'm fine
>> making it so.
>> I
>> like the first proposal from Milan:
>> ----
>> Addition to SpeechRecognitionResult (section 5.1)
>>
>>  readonly attribute DOMString emma;
>>
>> And the corresponding addition to 5.1.6:
>>  emma - A string representation of the XML-based <link>EMMA
>> 1.0</link> result. (link points to http://www.w3.org/TR/emma/
>> ----
>>
>> This spec proposal shouldn't mandate specific fields any more than
>> what EMMA does already so that web apps can point to existing
>> recognizers and get EMMA data in the same format as they would get
>> otherwise.
>
> Earlier in the thread, I thought we decided that it was better to make
> the emma attribute be of type Document rather than DOMString?

 
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 17:40:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 June 2012 17:40:13 GMT