W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-multimodal@w3.org > October 2008

RE: [emma] Conversational Technologies Implementation Reports for EMMA 1.0

From: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 18:03:18 -0400
To: "'JOHNSTON, MICHAEL J \(MICHAEL J\)'" <johnston@research.att.com>, <www-multimodal@w3.org>
Message-ID: <010901c924da$af759940$6801a8c0@chimaera>

Thank you for considering my comments, I am satisfied with 
your responses.

best regards,

Debbie Dahl 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-multimodal-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-multimodal-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of JOHNSTON, 
> MICHAEL J (MICHAEL J)
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 3:57 PM
> To: www-multimodal@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [emma] Conversational Technologies 
> Implementation Reports for EMMA 1.0
> 
> Many thanks for your support of EMMA. The specific comments
> your bring up have been discussed in detail by the 
> EMMA subgroup and they have formulated the following
> responses. Could you please confirm on the public list,
> www-multimodal@w3.org if this resolution of the issues is
> acceptable.
>  
> 2.1 Recommend clarifying the spec on semantics of start and 
> end times for text input
>  
> RESPONSE: We agree that this should be clarified but would 
> like to defer this to a later version of EMMA. There are a 
> number of issues that need to be considered, for example, 
> whether there is a difference between the semantics of timing 
> for typed text, cut and paste text, or text input from a file.
>  
> 2.2. (from updated report) test assertion 801 is inconsistent 
> with the specification
>  
> RESPONSE: We agree and have removed this test assertion.
>  
> best
> Michael Johnston
> on behalf of the EMMA subgroup
>  
>  
>  
> Conversational Technologies strongly supports the Extensible
> MultiModal Annotation 1.0 (EMMA) standard. By providing a standardized
> yet extensible and flexible basis for representing user input, we
> believe EMMA has tremendous potential for making possible a wide
> variety of innovative multimodal applications. In particular, EMMA
> provides strong support for applications based on user inputs in human
> language in many modalities, including speech, text and handwriting as
> well as visual modalities such as sign languages.  EMMA also
> supports composite multimodal interactions in which several user
> inputs in two or more modalities are integrated to represent a single
> user intent.
>  
> The Conversational Technologies EMMA implementations are used in
> tutorials on commercial applications of natural language processing
> and spoken dialog systems.  We report on two implementations. The
> first is an EMMA producer (NLWorkbench) which is used to illustrate
> statistical and grammar-based semantic analysis of speech and text
> inputs. The second implementation is an EMMA consumer, specifically a
> viewer for EMMA documents. The viewer can be used in the classroom to
> simplify examination of EMMA results as well as potentially in
> commercial applications for debugging spoken dialog systems. In
> addition, the viewer could also become the basis of an editor which
> would support such applications as human annotation of EMMA documents
> to be used as input to machine learning applications. For most of the
> EMMA structural elements the viewer simply provides a tree structure
> mirroring the XML markup. The most useful aspects of the viewer are
> probably the graphical representation for EMMA lattices, the ability
> to see timestamps as standard dates and the computed durations from
> EMMA timestamps. The two implementations will be made available in the
> near future as open source software.
>  
> Deborah Dahl, Conversational Technologies
> 
>  
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2008 22:04:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 2 October 2008 22:04:08 GMT