W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 24

From: Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:32:55 -0500
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, ext Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>, public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
Message-Id: <49177168-7429-451C-9B95-C8D458D96801@voxeo.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

On Jan 24, 2012, at 7:50 AM, Dan Burnett wrote:

> 
> On Jan 23, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> 
>> On 1/23/12 12:17 PM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:37:35 +0100, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 2. WebApps provides a balanced web-centric view for new JavaScript APIs.
>>>> The XG group consisted of a large number of speech experts, but only a few with broad web API expertise. We believe the formation of a new WG
>>>> would have a similar imbalance,
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure this is necessarily the case, and the reverse possibility, that the Web Apps group would not have enough speech experts should also be considered a potential risk.
>>> 
>>>> whereas the WebApps WG can provide valuable, balanced guidance and
>>>> feedback.
>>> 
>>> (FWIW I don't have a strong opinion on whether this is likely to be a real problem as opposed to a risk, and I think this conversation helps us work that out).
>> 
>> Another way to help us get the broadest set of stakeholders possible is for the Speech work to be done in a new WG or an existing WG like with some speech experts (Voice Browser WG or MMI WG?) and then to create some type of joint task force with WebApps.
>> 
>> This would have the advantage that WebApps members would only have to make an IP commitment for the specs created by the task force (and none of the other WG's specs) and the other WG would not have to make an IP commitment for any of WebApps' other specs. (Note we are already doing this for the Web Intents spec and the Dev-API WG).
>> 
>> Is the VBWG or MMIWG interested in taking the lead on the speech spec?
> 
> We will discuss this in today's VBWG call.  As VBWG chair, I am a bit nervous about a joint deliverable.  They are extremely tricky to work out and have the disadvantage that a delay in either group delays overall progress.  However, dedicated workers can overcome most of these problems.
> Personally, I agree with Debbie that a separate, dedicated Working Group has the double advantages of clear focus and easier IP commitments.
> 
> -- dan
> (Speaking as both individual and VBWG chair in this email)

The Voice Browser Working Group met earlier today and discussed the possibility of taking on the work of continuing the development and standardization of the JavaScript API and markup bindings, either individually or in conjunction with WebApps.

The following two concerns were raised:
1) The Voice Browser Working Group is a member-confidential group with a large membership, so it is possible that gaining IP commitments for doing this work may be non-trivial.  The Working Group has had multiple Patent Advisory Groups in its lifetime due to its work in both the telephony and automatic speech recognition spaces.
2) Based on past experience, there is a strong likelihood that one or more browser vendors will not be willing to participate in joint work with the Voice Browser Working Group.

The consensus of those on today's call was that the Voice Browser Working Group would be willing to pursue leading this effort, but that for the reasons mentioned above the VBWG would prefer that the work be done either in a new Working Group or in the WebApps WG.

-- Dan Burnett
(speaking as VBWG chair)
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 21:33:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:50 GMT