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

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

From: Satish S <satish@google.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 13:42:16 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHZf7Rkh+4pn8AU6HbWwaazdbgOFOF+dB5fpgbMuCwoqnK9t3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Cc: Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>, Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com>, "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>
> --EMMA--
> Can we agree the following addition to SpeechRecognitionResult (section
> 5.1)?
>  readonly attribute DOMString emma;

Given the use cases I'm ok with adding the emma attribute. I think it is
better if it is of type Document (similar to XmlHttpRequest.responseXML) as
there would be far more use cases for parsing the emma result in JS than
using it as a string.

I also think this should be an optional attribute and the UA can set it to
null if the service didn't return EMMA data. The reasoning is that
accessing the raw utterance value is far simpler with the JS object
(alternative.utterance) than navigating through the emma xml DOM, so the
emma attribute will be useful only for those web apps which require
additional data from the recognizer and know that the service they are
using will be sending that data.


>  I like Satish's suggestion of rendering the interpretation structure as a
> native JS object.  The only dissenting opinion I heard was that the value
> of the interpretation should be readily accessible for developers that
> didn't want to traverse slots.
> I thinks both of these needs can be met using the <emma:literal> tag which
> sits under <emma:interpretation>.  For simple interpretation scenarios
> (like basic dictation), the recognizer will populate the <emma:literal>
> with the text meaning of the utterance.  This will be reflected as a simple
> string accessible from the "interpretation" property of the
> SpeechRecognitionAlternative.  If the EMMA contains slots, these will be
> accessible using the JS property syntax (eg interpretation.time).  Note
> that I don't think EMMA prevents <emma:literal> in parallel with slots.
>  But I don't think we should change the proposed design either way.

If emma is exposed as a separate attribute, I think that alone is
sufficient and no need to represent the same data in another format (i.e.
as a JS object). My earlier proposal was to only expose JS objects but
since there are valid cases where that wouldn't be sufficient exposing the
emma document is ok. I'd prefer we don't inject the interpretation received
in SISR into the emma XML as again it is simpler to access it via JS.
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 12:42:51 UTC

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