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 15:21:07 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPYqdFcqj1cZ=dP-3rpChDCWC1o1Aqb4oMLF_byy+4ttRzst0w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Felix Burkhardt <Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de>
Cc: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, "www-multimodal@w3.org" <www-multimodal@w3.org>
Hi Felix,
thanks for the feedback, please note that I used the Kazuyuki version (I'm
not sure what do you refer to with "current file"). I'm actually using the
validation API of Java (jdk1.7.0_51). There might be indeed something wrong
with it or with my use of it.

I cannot test with Notepad++ (I'm on Mac). However, when testing with an
online validator, the fail_156.xml file passes validation with the new xsd:
http://www.utilities-online.info/xsdvalidation/?save=99b401a2-c0ba-4004-a3c8-c3fefd74d993-xsdvalidation#.UwS5cUJ5N_U

The XSD on the right merges:
- the root schema : http://www.w3.org/TR/emotionml/emotionml.xsd
- the emotionml-fragments.xsd sent by Kazuyuki

Nevertheless, when testing the same fail_156.xml with the schemas available
on the EmotionML page:
http://www.utilities-online.info/xsdvalidation/?save=f7d401df-c512-48bb-9062-f97d676b13e0-xsdvalidation#.UwS7Z0J5N_U

It does not pass the validation as expected with the same result that you
have (so that's why I'm not sure of which schema you used).
The XSD on the right merges:
- the root schema : http://www.w3.org/TR/emotionml/emotionml.xsd
- the fragments : http://www.w3.org/TR/emotionml/emotionml-fragments.xsd

Are you able to reproduce these results? Maybe I just did something wrong,
best regards,
Alex








On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:49 PM, <Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> If I try to validate Alexandre's file with the free Notepad++ editor
>
> I get
>
> Validation of current file using XML schema:
>
>
>
> ERROR: Element '{http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml}emotion': Missing
> child element(s). Expected is one of ( {
> http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml}info, {
> http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml}category, {
> http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml}dimension, {
> http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml}appraisal, {
> http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml}action-tendency ).
>
>
>
> Which is just what should happen.
>
> So it seems the xsd works with this respect,
>
> perhaps Alexandre's implementation has really a problem here?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Felix
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Alexandre Denis [mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.fr]
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 19. Februar 2014 11:53
> *An:* Kazuyuki Ashimura
> *Cc:* Patrick Gebhard; Burkhardt, Felix; Marc Schröder; Roddy Cowie;
> Deborah Dahl; gerhard.fobe@s2009.tu-chemnitz.de; Edmon Begoli;
> christian@becker-asano.de (christian@becker-asano.de); kazemzad@usc.edu;
> Tim Llewellynn; www-multimodal@w3.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [EmotionML] Additional implementation feedback and Rec
> publication (was Re: [EmotionML] implementation release and feedbacks)
>
>
>
> 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<%2B81%20466%2049%201170>
> >
>             <tel:%2B81%20466%2049%201170 <%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<%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 14:21:50 UTC

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