W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-multimodal@w3.org > February 2014

Re: [EmotionML] Additional implementation feedback and Rec publication (was Re: [EmotionML] implementation release and feedbacks)

From: Alexandre Denis <alexandre.denis@loria.fr>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:53:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPYqdFed-4vkyq=hJ7zDJFVPuFgQK8Gq0rngeeOvhFXkj1GLLA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Cc: Patrick Gebhard <patrick.gebhard@dfki.de>, Felix Burkhardt <Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de>, Marc Schröder <marcschroeder108@gmail.com>, Roddy Cowie <r.cowie@qub.ac.uk>, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, gerhard.fobe@s2009.tu-chemnitz.de, Edmon Begoli <ebegoli@gmail.com>, "christian@becker-asano.de (christian@becker-asano.de)" <christian@becker-asano.de>, kazemzad@usc.edu, Tim Llewellynn <tim.llewellynn@nviso.ch>, "www-multimodal@w3.org" <www-multimodal@w3.org>
Hello Kazuyuki,
thanks for the update. Please note that assertion 156 is not tested anymore
(The <emotion> element MUST contain at least one <category> or <dimension>
or <appraisal> or <action-tendency> element). I think this is because of
the <choice> which now seems to accept empty emotions. This could be caused
by the interaction between <choice> and children minOccurs=0, it could also
be a problem with the implementation I'm using. Could you please test the
new schema on the given file with your own validator ? Otherwise it's fine,
previous assertions that were not tested are now tested (172, 410 and 417),
best regards,
Alexandre





On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Alexandre,
>
> Sorry for the delay.
>
> We've fixed the issues on the schema file and the EmotionML vocabulary
> file, and would like to publish the EmotionML spec as a REC along with
> the updated EmotionML Vocabulary Note.
>
> FYI, we added the following changes to the Schema file for the
> EmotionML spec:
>
> - Replaced "sequence" with "choice" for the <emotion> element in lines
>   91 and 95.
>
> - Changed the "default" to "fixed" for "1.0" in the version attribute
>   of <emotion> element in line 96.
>
> - Added [[use="required"]] to the "uri" attribute of the <reference>
>   element in line 32.
>
> Please see attached "emotionml-fragments.xsd".
>
> Also we added version information to the EmotionML vocabulary file.
> Please see attached "xml.emotionml".
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kazuyuki
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>wrote:
>
>> Hi Alexandre,
>>
>> Happy New Year!  And very sorry for the big delay.
>> I have been travelling (business travels :) for a while.
>>
>> Could you please see inline below?
>>
>>
>> On 12/16/2013 06:43 PM, Alexandre Denis wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>> yes sure, but since I don't see the new specification, I can only trust
>>> you that the (small) mistakes are corrected. As for the schemas,
>>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>  [5]http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-__emotionml-20130416/emotionml.__xsd
>>>>
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/emotionml.xsd>
>>>
>>>> [6]http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-__emotionml-20130416/emotionml
>>>>
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/emotionml->
>>> -fragments.xsd
>>>
>>>
>>> The only difference I see with the schemas stored in our implementation
>>> is the required status of the version attribute of the <emotionml> tag,
>>> and it's possible I altered the schema myself because of the lack of the
>>> version in http://www.w3.org/TR/emotion-voc/xml. It is also important to
>>> fix the version attribute on this document, otherwise every emotionml
>>> document referring to these vocabularies will fail to pass validation (I
>>> had to manually disable the corresponding assertion check in the code),
>>>
>>
>> OK.  We'll see the detail of the problem and fix the issue of
>> version handling.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Kazuyuki
>>
>>
>>
>>> best regards,
>>> Alexandre
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org
>>> <mailto:ashimura@w3.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hi Alexandre, Debbie, Felix, Gerhard, Patrick, Marc, Roddy and all,
>>>
>>>     Thank you very much for your EmotionML implementations!  And I am
>>> very
>>>     sorry I did not respond to you earlier.  It seems my original message
>>>     did not go out due to some trouble.
>>>
>>>     As you know, there were the following two features which were not
>>>     explicitly listed on the EmotionML Implementation Report Plan [a].
>>>
>>>     ------------------------------__----------------------------
>>>
>>>     Two features not listed on the Implementation Report Plan:
>>>     ------------------------------__----------------------------
>>>
>>>     Feature1:
>>>        In Section 2.4.1 of the spec [b], there is a feature "The end
>>> value
>>>        MUST be greater than or equal to the start value", which is not
>>>        checked in the Implementation Report.
>>>
>>>     Feature2:
>>>        In Section 2.1.2 of the spec [b], there is a feature "a typical
>>> use
>>>        case is expected to be embedding an <emotion> into some other
>>>        markup", which is not checked in the Implementation Report.
>>>
>>>     However, according to the responses so far, we have already
>>>     got the following implementations for the above features.
>>>
>>>     ------------------------------__------------------
>>>
>>>     Implementation status of the above two features:
>>>     ------------------------------__------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>     Feature1: 3 implementations
>>>     - Gerhard Fobe:
>>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/
>>> 2013Nov/__0000.html
>>>
>>>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/
>>> 0000.html>
>>>     - Alexandre Denis:
>>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/
>>> 2013Nov/__0005.html
>>>
>>>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/
>>> 0005.html>
>>>     - Patrick Gebhard:
>>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/
>>> 2013Nov/__0006.html
>>>
>>>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/
>>> 0006.html>
>>>
>>>     Feature2: 4 implementations
>>>     - Gerhard Fobe:
>>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/
>>> 2013Nov/__0000.html
>>>
>>>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/
>>> 0000.html>
>>>     - Debbie Dahl:
>>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/
>>> 2013Nov/__0003.html
>>>
>>>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/
>>> 0003.html>
>>>     - Alexandre Denis:
>>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/
>>> 2013Nov/__0005.html
>>>
>>>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/
>>> 0005.html>
>>>     - Patrick Gebhard:
>>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/
>>> 2013Nov/__0006.html
>>>
>>>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/
>>> 0006.html>
>>>
>>>     As I reported in October [c], we have already fixed typos in the spec
>>>     and added necessary clarifications to it.  Also we have fixed the
>>>     errors in the EmotionML schema.
>>>
>>>     So I would like to confirm that it is the time for us all to go ahead
>>>     and publish EmotionML as a W3C Recommendation.
>>>
>>>     Alexandre (as the original commenter), is that OK by you?
>>>
>>>     [a] http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/__2012/emotionml-irp/
>>>     <http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/2012/emotionml-irp/>
>>>     [b] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-__emotionml-20130416/
>>>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/>
>>>     [c]
>>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/
>>> 2013Oct/__0010.html
>>>
>>>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Oct/
>>> 0010.html>
>>>
>>>     Thanks,
>>>
>>>     Kazuyuki
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 11/08/2013 04:52 AM, Patrick Gebhard wrote:
>>>
>>>         Dear Felix,
>>>
>>>         I've updated ALMA (a DFKI EmotionML implementation) last October
>>>         in esp.
>>>         these two features, see attachment. Maybe my email got lost.
>>>
>>>         Anyway, Feature 1: pass, Feature 2: pass.
>>>
>>>         Best
>>>         Patrick
>>>
>>>         Am 07.11.2013 um 18:16 schrieb Marc Schröder
>>>         <marcschroeder108@gmail.com <mailto:marcschroeder108@gmail.com>
>>>         <mailto:marcschroeder108@__gmail.com
>>>
>>>         <mailto:marcschroeder108@gmail.com>>>:
>>>
>>>             Hi all,
>>>
>>>             DFKI's implementation has not-impl for both of these (unless
>>>             it has
>>>             been changed since I left).
>>>
>>>             Looking forward to seeing EmotionML become a Rec!
>>>
>>>             Best,
>>>             Marc
>>>
>>>
>>>             On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:50 AM, <Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de
>>>             <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de>
>>>             <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@__telekom.de
>>>
>>>             <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>                  Dear implementers of EmotionML
>>>                  To make a long story short: Alexandre Denis of Loria
>>> did a
>>>                  thorough review and implementation of EmotionML and
>>>             found several
>>>                  flaws that we managed to fix, now two issues are still
>>>             open and we
>>>                  need to know from you whether your implementation
>>>             supports two
>>>                  features, namely:
>>>                  >Feature1:
>>>                  >    In Section 2.4.1 of the sepc [1], there is a
>>>             feature "The end
>>>                  value
>>>                  >    MUST be greater than or equal to the start value",
>>>             which is not
>>>                  >    checked in the Implementation Report.
>>>                  >
>>>                  >Feature2:
>>>                  >    In Section 2.1.2 of the spec [1], there is a
>>>             feature "a
>>>                  typical use
>>>                  >    case is expected to be embedding an <emotion> into
>>>             some other
>>>                  >    markup", which is not checked in the
>>>             Implementation Report.
>>>
>>>                  Please respond to this mail until 25th of November and
>>>             state for
>>>                  both features whether it's "pass", "fail"  or "not-impl"
>>>                  Please send the answer to the public mailing list:
>>>             www-multimodal@w3.org <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org>
>>>             <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>                  EmotionML will then soon become a real recommendation!
>>>
>>>                  Thanks a lot,
>>>                  Felix
>>>
>>>                  >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>                  >Von: Kazuyuki Ashimura [mailto:ashimura@w3.org
>>>             <mailto:ashimura@w3.org>
>>>                  <mailto:ashimura@w3.org <mailto:ashimura@w3.org>>]
>>>                  >Gesendet: Montag, 28. Oktober 2013 07:57
>>>                  >An: alexandre.denis@loria.fr
>>>             <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.fr>
>>>             <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.__fr
>>>
>>>             <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.fr>>;
>>>             www-multimodal@w3.org <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org>
>>>             <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org>
>>> >
>>>
>>>                  >Cc: Burkhardt, Felix; Samuel.Cruz-Lara@loria.fr
>>>             <mailto:Samuel.Cruz-Lara@loria.fr>
>>>                  <mailto:Samuel.Cruz-Lara@__loria.fr
>>>
>>>             <mailto:Samuel.Cruz-Lara@loria.fr>>
>>>                  >Betreff: Re: AW: [EmotionML] implementation release
>>>             and feedbacks
>>>                  >
>>>                  >Dear Alexandre and EmotionML implementers,
>>>                  >
>>>                  >Thank you very much for implementing EmotionML,
>>> Alexandre!
>>>                  >Also your thorough review on the EmotionML [1]
>>>             specification and the
>>>                  >Implementation Report [2] is really appreciated.
>>>                  >
>>>                  >We are very sorry it took much longer to get consensus
>>>             about how
>>>                  to respond
>>>                  >to you and wrap-up the procedure [3] to publish
>>>             EmotionML as a W3C
>>>                  >Recommendation.
>>>                  >
>>>                  >We the W3C Multimodal Interaction Working Group have
>>>             already
>>>                  fixed typos
>>>                  >in the spec and added necessary clarifications to it.
>>>  In
>>>                  addition, we have
>>>                  >generated an updated version of the schema [5, 6].
>>>                  >
>>>                  >Now the remaining question is how to deal with your
>>>             comments on the
>>>                  >Implementation Report which wouldn't change the spec
>>>             itself.
>>>                  >
>>>                  >I talked within the W3C Team about what we should have
>>>             done from
>>>                  the W3C
>>>                  >Process viewpoint, and it seems we need to make sure
>>>             that there
>>>                  are enough
>>>                  >implementation experience for the following two
>>>             features which
>>>                  were not
>>>                  >explicitly described in the published Implementation
>>>             Report [2].
>>>                  >
>>>                  >Feature1:
>>>                  >    In Section 2.4.1 of the sepc [1], there is a
>>>             feature "The end
>>>                  value
>>>                  >    MUST be greater than or equal to the start value",
>>>             which is not
>>>                  >    checked in the Implementation Report.
>>>                  >
>>>                  >Feature2:
>>>                  >    In Section 2.1.2 of the spec [1], there is a
>>>             feature "a
>>>                  typical use
>>>                  >    case is expected to be embedding an <emotion> into
>>>             some other
>>>                  >    markup", which is not checked in the
>>>             Implementation Report.
>>>                  >
>>>                  >We have already checked with EmotionML implementers
>>>             (including
>>>                  you) and
>>>                  >it seems we can get several implementations for the
>>>             above two
>>>                  features as
>>>                  >well.
>>>                  >
>>>                  >Now we would like to ask all the EmotionML
>>> implementers to
>>>                  respond to this
>>>                  >message and express if the aobve features are
>>>             implmented so that
>>>                  we can
>>>                  >finalize the procedure and publish EmotionML as a W3C
>>>             Recommendation.
>>>                  >
>>>                  >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-__emotionml-20130416/
>>>             <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/>
>>>                  >[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/__2013/emotionml-ir/
>>>             <http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/2013/emotionml-ir/>
>>>                  >[3]
>>>             http://www.w3.org/2004/02/__Process-20040205/tr.html#__
>>> maturity-levels
>>>             <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#
>>> maturity-levels>
>>>                  >[4]
>>>             http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/
>>> 2013May/__0000.html
>>>             <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013May/
>>> 0000.html>
>>>                  >[5]
>>>             http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-__emotionml-20130416/emotionml.
>>> __xsd
>>>             <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/emotionml.
>>> xsd>
>>>                  >[6]
>>>             http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-__emotionml-20130416/emotionml-
>>>
>>>             <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/emotionml->
>>>                  >fragments.xsd
>>>                  >
>>>                  >Sincerely,
>>>                  >
>>>                  >Kazuyuki Ashimura;
>>>                  >for the W3C Multimodal Interaction Working Group
>>>                  >
>>>                  >
>>>                  >
>>>                  >On 05/02/2013 07:00 PM, Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de
>>>             <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de>
>>>                  <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@__telekom.de
>>>
>>>             <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de>> wrote:
>>>                  >> Congratulations, Alexandre
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>  >Sorry to give you more work!
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> Not at all, I'm indeed very happy you work with
>>>             EmotionML and
>>>                  grateful
>>>                  >> you do such a thorough job in revising it!
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> It's just it'll take me/us some time to react on
>>>             this, sorry
>>>                  about this.
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> Kind regards,
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> Felix
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> *Von:*Alexandre Denis
>>>             [mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.__fr
>>>             <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.fr>
>>>                  <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.__fr
>>>
>>>             <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.fr>>]
>>>                  >> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 2. Mai 2013 11:43
>>>                  >> *An:* www-multimodal@w3.org
>>>             <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org> <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org
>>>             <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org>>__;
>>>
>>>                  Samuel CRUZ-LARA
>>>                  >> *Betreff:* [EmotionML] implementation release and
>>>             feedbacks
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> Hello all,
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> I'm happy to announce that we released the very
>>>             first version
>>>                  of our
>>>                  >> EmotionML Java implementation. It is hosted on
>>>             google code and
>>>                  >> released under the MIT license:
>>>                  >> https://code.google.com/p/__loria-synalp-emotionml/
>>>
>>>             <https://code.google.com/p/loria-synalp-emotionml/>
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> It is still considered as an alpha version, we would
>>>             need some
>>>                  users
>>>                  >> to validate its use. And there is still some work on
>>> the
>>>                  documentation
>>>                  >> but the core of the code is there.
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> If we could be listed as an implementation in the
>>>             next round of the
>>>                  >> implementation report it would be nice. Here is the
>>>             description:
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> Alexandre Denis, LORIA laboratory, SYNALP team,
>>> France
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> The LORIA/SYNALP implementation of EmotionML is a
>>>             Java standalone
>>>                  >> library developed in the context of the ITEA
>>>             Empathic Products
>>>                  project
>>>                  >> by the LORIA/SYNALP team. It enables to import Java
>>>             objects from
>>>                  >> EmotionML XML files and export them to EmotionML as
>>>             well. It
>>>                  >> guarantees standard compliance by performing a two
>>>             steps validation
>>>                  >> after all export operations and before all import
>>>             operations: first
>>>                  >> the EmotionML schema is tested, then all EmotionML
>>>             assertions are
>>>                  >> tested. If one or the other fails, an error message
>>>             is produced and
>>>                  >> the document cannot be imported or exported. The
>>>             library contains a
>>>                  >> corpus of badly formatted EmotionML files that
>>>             enables to
>>>                  double check
>>>                  >> if both the schema and the assertions manage to
>>>             correctly
>>>                  invalidate
>>>                  >> them. The API is hosted on google code
>>>                  >> (https://code.google.com/p/__loria-synalp-emotionml/
>>>             <https://code.google.com/p/loria-synalp-emotionml/>) and is
>>>
>>>                  released under
>>>                  >the MIT License.
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> Moreover I don't come to you with empty hands, and I
>>>             have a
>>>                  bunch of
>>>                  >> remarks related to the EmotionML specification.
>>>             Sorry to give
>>>                  you more
>>>                  >work!
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> best regards,
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> Alexandre Denis
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> *** Comments about EmotionML specification
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> In what follows:
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> - "specification" refers to the document at
>>>                  >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-__emotionml-20130416/
>>>
>>>             <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/> (version
>>>             of 16
>>>                  April
>>>                  >> 2013)
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> - "assertions" refers to the list of assertions at
>>>                  >>
>>>             http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/__2013/emotionml-ir/#test_class
>>>
>>>             <http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/2013/emotionml-ir/#test_class>
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> - "schema" refers to the schemas
>>>                  >> http://www.w3.org/TR/__emotionml/emotionml.xsd
>>>             <http://www.w3.org/TR/emotionml/emotionml.xsd> and
>>>                  >>
>>>             http://www.w3.org/TR/__emotionml/emotionml-fragments.__xsd
>>>
>>>             <http://www.w3.org/TR/emotionml/emotionml-fragments.xsd>
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> ** Specification clarification questions
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> - About relative and absolute timing ?
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              - Is that possible to mix relative and
>>>             absolute
>>>                  timing ?
>>>                  >> Intuitively this would seem weird but nothing in the
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              specification prevents it.
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> - About consistency of start/end/duration ?
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              - I think the specification does not
>>>             enforce the
>>>                  >> consistency of start, end and duration which are
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              possible alltogether. Hence it is
>>>             possible to have
>>>                  >> inconsistent triplets (start=0, end=5, duration=10).
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> - About text nodes ?
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              - the emotion element can have text
>>> nodes
>>>                  children, it is
>>>                  >> not specified how many. Is it possible to
>>>             intersperse text
>>>                  nodes all
>>>                  >> over
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              an emotion element ? The fact that an
>>>             emotion
>>>                  element can
>>>                  >> have text children is not specified in its children
>>>             list.
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> - About emotion children combinations ?
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              - the specification states "There are no
>>>                  constraints on
>>>                  >> the combinations of children that are allowed.", it
>>>             is maybe
>>>                  confusing
>>>                  >> since
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              an emotion cannot contain two
>>>             categories that
>>>                  belong to
>>>                  >> different category-sets or two categories with the
>>>             same name.
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> - About default values ?
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              - some attributes have default values
>>>             (reference role,
>>>                  >> time ref anchor point, duration, etc.), is it
>>>             desirable to have a
>>>                  >> default
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              value also for other attributes,
>>>             especially for
>>>                  the "value"
>>>                  >> attribute ? For instance, how would you compare
>>>             <category
>>>                  >> name="surprise"/>
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              and <category name="surprise"
>>>             value="1.0"/> ? Are they
>>>                  >> semantically equivalent ? A similar question could
>>>             be made
>>>                  about the
>>>                  >> "confidence"
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              attribute, how would you compare
>>> <category
>>>                  >> name="surprise"/> and <category name="surprise"
>>>                  confidence="1.0"/> ?
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> - About the number of <trace> ?
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              - the specification does not state
>>>             clearly if it is
>>>                  >> possible to have several <trace> elements inside a
>>>             descriptor,
>>>                  it is
>>>                  >> stated
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              "a <trace> element". Maybe it should be
>>>             stated "If
>>>                  >> present the following child element can occur one or
>>>             more time:
>>>                  <trace>".
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              The schema allows that. If this comment
>>> is
>>>                  accepted, the
>>>                  >> assertions 215, 224, 235, 245 should also be
>>> clarified.
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> - About conformance ?
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              - In section 4.3, it is stated "It is
>>> the
>>>                  responsibility
>>>                  >> of an EmotionML processor to verify that the use of
>>>             descriptor
>>>                  names
>>>                  >> and values
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              is consistent with the vocabulary
>>>             definition",
>>>                  which is
>>>                  >> true but incomplete with regards to the assertions,
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              maybe it would be beneficial to specify
>>>             all the
>>>                  >> assertions that are not under the schema
>>>             responsability but
>>>                  rather the
>>>                  >> EmotionML processor
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              (see below) or at least warn that there
>>>             are many
>>>                  >> assertions not checked by the schema.
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> ** Discrepancies between
>>>             schema/assertions/__specification
>>>
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> - Assertions not tested by the schema
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              - I found that the following assertions
>>>             are not
>>>                  tested by
>>>                  >> the schema : 114, 117, 120, 123, 161, 164, 167, 170,
>>>             172, 210, 212,
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              216, 220, 222, 224, 230, 232, 236, 240,
>>>             242, 246,
>>>                  410, 417.
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              There are assertions that are
>>>             impossible to test
>>>                  with a
>>>                  >> XSD schema I think:
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>                          114, 117, 120, 123, 161,
>>>             164, 167, 170 :
>>>                  >> vocabulary set id and type checking
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>                          212, 222, 232, 242 :
>>>             vocabulary name
>>>                  >> membership
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>                          417 : media type (unless
>>>             enumerating them)
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              Some may be possible with some tweaking:
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>                          210, 220, 230, 240 :
>>>             vocabulary set
>>>                  presence
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>                          216, 224, 236, 246 :
>>>             <trace> and "value"
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              There are two "true" errors I think:
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>                          172 : The "version"
>>>             attribute of
>>>                  <emotion>,
>>>                  >> if present, MUST have the  value "1.0"
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>                                      I think it
>>>             should not be
>>>                  >> "optional with default value 1.0" but rather
>>>             "optional with
>>>                  fixed value 1.0"
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>                          410 : The <reference>
>>>             element MUST
>>>                  contain a
>>>                  >> "uri" attribute
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>                                      the "uri"
>>>             attribute is
>>>                  optional
>>>                  >> by default in the schema
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> - 2.4.1, "The end value MUST be greater than or
>>>             equal to the start
>>>                  >> value",
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              - the schema does not check it and
>>>             there is no
>>>                  assertion
>>>                  >> enforcing it
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> - 2.1.2, "a typical use case is expected to be
>>>             embedding an
>>>                  <emotion>
>>>                  >> into some other markup",
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              - there is no assertion that describe
>>> that
>>>                  <emotion> may
>>>                  >> be embedded in another markup, does it imply we
>>>             could embed other
>>>                  >elements ?
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              - is a document containing a sole
>>>             <emotion> a valid
>>>                  >> document (not in the sense of <emotionml> document)
>>>             ? If yes,
>>>                  maybe an
>>>                  >> assertion clarifiying the use of <emotion> would be
>>>             useful.
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> - assertions 105, 155, 601, 606, status "Req=N"
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              - the assertions mix the presence of
>>>             <info> and the
>>>                  >> number of <info> elements, while the presence is not
>>>                  restricted, the
>>>                  >> number
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              MUST be 0 or 1, hence the required
>>>             status wrt this
>>>                  part
>>>                  >> of assertions should be "Req=Y"
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> - 2.1.2, "There are no constraints on the order in
>>> which
>>>                  children occur"
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              - the schema does actually restrict the
>>>             order of
>>>                  >> elements, <info> needs to be first, then the
>>>             descriptors, then the
>>>                  >> references
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> ** Invalid documents
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> (I have not systematically tested examples with
>>>             non-valid
>>>                  vocabulary
>>>                  >> URIs such as http://www.example.
>>>             <http://www.example./>...)
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> - http://www.w3.org/TR/emotion-__voc/xml
>>>
>>>             <http://www.w3.org/TR/emotion-voc/xml> does not comply with
>>>                  assertion
>>>                  >> 110 (hence all examples that refer to vocabularies
>>>             there also fail)
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> - 2.3.3 The <info> element
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              - The last example of this section does
>>>             not comply
>>>                  with
>>>                  >> assertion 212 since the name "neutral" does not
>>>             belong to every-day
>>>                  >> categories
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >> - 5.1.1 Annotation of Text, "Annotation of text"
>>>             Lewis Caroll
>>>                  example:
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              - In the <meta:doc> element, the
>>>             character & is found,
>>>                  >> which does not pass XML validation, it should be
>>>             &amp; (so does the
>>>                  >> example below)
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >>              - It also does not comply with
>>>             assertion 212 since
>>>                  >> Disgust and Anger are not part of every-day
>>> categories
>>>                  >>
>>>                  >
>>>                  >
>>>                  >--
>>>                  >Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Web&TV, MMI and
>>> Voice
>>>                  >Tel: +81 466 49 1170 <tel:%2B81%20466%2049%201170>
>>>             <tel:%2B81%20466%2049%201170>
>>>
>>>
>>>         =
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     --
>>>     Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Web&TV, MMI and Voice
>>>     Tel: +81 466 49 1170 <tel:%2B81%20466%2049%201170>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Kaz Ashimura, W3C Activity Lead for Web&TV, MMI and Voice
>>
>> Tel: +81 466 49 1170
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Web&TV, MMI and Voice
> Tel: +81 466 49 1170
>
>


Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2014 10:53:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:38 UTC