RE: R6. Web application must be provided with full context of recognition.

It sounds like we may have consensus that this requirement is made obsolete given the expansion of R27 that occurred at the face-to-face.

On the 11/11 call I'd like to have us confirm that this is our decision.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Olli Pettay
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 8:48 AM
To: Bjorn Bringert
Cc: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
Subject: Re: R6. Web application must be provided with full context of recognition.

On 11/08/2010 06:26 PM, Bjorn Bringert wrote:
> The explaining text says "Because speech recognition is by its nature 
> imperfect and probabilistic a set of additional metadata is frequently 
> generated including n-best list of alternate suggestions, confidences 
> or recognition results, and semantic structure represented by 
> recognition results. All of this data must be provided to the web 
> application."
>
> I think that it is too much to require that *all* the data produced by 
> the recognizer must be provided to the web application. R6 could be 
> replaced with: "It should be possible for speech recognizers to return 
> additional data in speech recognition results."
>
> But then I think that the proposed replacements for requirement 27 
> already cover this in enough detail:
>
> 27c It should be possible for the web application to get the 
> recognition results in a standard format such as EMMA 27d It should be 
> easy for the web appls to get access to the most common pieces of 
> recognition results such as utterance, confidence, nbests


R6 does also talk about semantic structure, but that is something EMMA includes. So 27c/27d should be enough and R6 could be removed.


-Olli


>
> /Bjorn
>
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Dan Burnett<dburnett@voxeo.com>  wrote:
>> Group,
>>
>> This is the next of the requirements to discuss and prioritize based 
>> on our ranking approach [1].
>>
>> This email is the beginning of a thread for questions, discussion, 
>> and opinions regarding our first draft of Requirement 6 [2].  
>> Although this might have been addressed via our discussion of 
>> Requirement 27, I am sending it just in case.  If everyone believes 
>> it is resolved it should be quick :)
>>
>> Please discuss via email as we agreed at the Lyon f2f meeting.  
>> Outstanding points of contention will be discussed live at the next teleconference.
>>
>> -- dan
>>
>> [1]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Oct/0024

>> .html
>> [2]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Oct/att-

>> 0001/speech.html#r6
>>
>>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 08:01:36 UTC