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: Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:54:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEE5bci9HJ-0Mms5N8ij5WFc7UDO10h2Vux_cXP6wfjnqi-_MA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Satish S <satish@google.com>
Cc: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com>, "olli@pettay.fi" <olli@pettay.fi>, Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>, "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>
Support for EMMA has been agreed upon, including this change to Section 5.1:
 readonly attribute Document emma;

For Section 5.1.6 we've agreed (or at least no one has objected) that it
will be valid EMMA 1.0 (link to http://www.w3.org/TR/emma/)

What we do not yet have consensus on is:

- Should the Speech API specify a more stringent spec than EMMA 1.0 by
changing some OPTIONAL attributes to be REQUIRED or SHOULD?

- Should this CG be responsible for adding such new requirements to EMMA,
or should such new requirements be proposed through the MMI WG that created
the EMMA spec?

Deborah has confirmed that many of the primary use cases for EMMA
(supporting existing dialog managers and loggers) require no specific
additional attributes. [1]

/Glen Shires

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0039.html

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Satish S <satish@google.com> wrote:

> Implementations SHOULD expose the following:****
>>   * <emma:interpretation> tag(s) populated with the interpretation (e.g.
>> emma:literal or slot values)****
>>   * The following attributes on the <emma:interpretation> tag: id,
>> emma:process, emma:tokens, emma:medium, emma:mode.
> The EMMA spec doesn't mention that implementations SHOULD include these
> nodes and attributes. The scope of our CG is to produce the JS API and
> charter also says "Specification of HTML markup and a network speech
> protocol are out-of-scope of this Community Group." - so additions such as
> the above recommending certain format of EMMA data seem out of scope of our
> CG. We should bring up these in the MMI WG.
> Milan's first proposal "A string representation of the XML-based
> <link>EMMA 1.0</link> result." seems like the right language to me. We
> could also have a non-normative section showing an example EMMA XML for the
> single result scenario with all these attributes as that would be useful.
> --
> Cheers
> Satish
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 00:55:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:26 UTC