W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-emotion@w3.org > May 2008

Re: [EMOXG] Deliverable report published as first draft: Emotion Markup Language: Requirements with Priorities

From: Kostas Karpouzis <kkarpou@cs.ntua.gr>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 13:56:53 +0300
Message-ID: <48282275.3090709@cs.ntua.gr>
To: EMOXG-public <public-xg-emotion@w3.org>

Catherine Pelachaud wrote:
> My 2 cents on the definition of min, max.
> In MPEG-4 facial Animation Parameters have no min-max. Any values are 
> allowed. The difficulty is to make sure that all MPEG-4 player 
> interprets the values in a similar manner. To ensure this, detailled 
> examples are provided as well as animation files that served as test bed.
> I also like the idea of not having min-max specified. It allows for much 
> more flexibility and also not to have to define what it is absolute max 
Plus, some applications may _want_ to use excessive values (e.g. for 
eye-popping, cartoon-like animation) In addition to this, in MPEG-4 
units are inherent in the measurement, since values normalized wrt 
constant distances; e.g. FAPs related to the eyebrows are normalized 
using the distance between the eyes and the nose, which (normally) is a 
Regarding fuzziness and labels, I would think that it's best to leave it 
up to applications reading and using EMOXG to define them or, in any 
case, a higher-level structure which again would be app-dependent (an 
ontology relating feature points to FAPs to expressivity maybe?) In some 
cases, or for certain users, a specific measurement of eyebrow movement, 
for instance, may correspond to 'high' activation, while in other cases 
or contexts, the same measurement may be labeled 'medium'
Received on Monday, 12 May 2008 10:58:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:52:15 UTC