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

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

From: <Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 16:06:07 +0100
To: <alexandre.denis@loria.fr>
CC: <ashimura@w3.org>, <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, <www-multimodal@w3.org>
Message-ID: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A2DA8EA7E4D@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Very sorry, Alexandre, you're right, I mixed up the files and used the old version.

I did some testing and it seems you're right again, the problem seems that , in a choice, if one element has minOccurs=0 this goes for all elements, even if minOccurs=1 is stated, a behavior I find very unexpected.
We have to find a solution if this can be stated at all in XML schema.
To state the problem once more (as I understood it):
We need to find a possibility to enforce

-          That an element has children

-          Some are optional, at most once

-          A Group of elements is required (one of them at least once)

-          The order is not restricted.

If we cannot state this, assertion 156 cannot be tested by automatic Schema validation.
Regards,
Felix







Von: Alexandre Denis [mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.fr]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Februar 2014 15:21
An: Burkhardt, Felix
Cc: Kazuyuki Ashimura; Deborah Dahl; www-multimodal@w3.org
Betreff: Re: [EmotionML] Additional implementation feedback and Rec publication (was Re: [EmotionML] implementation release and feedbacks)

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<mailto: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<http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml%7Demotion>': Missing child element(s). Expected is one of ( {http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml}info<http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml%7Dinfo>, {http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml}category<http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml%7Dcategory>, {http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml}dimension<http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml%7Ddimension>, {http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml}appraisal<http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml%7Dappraisal>, {http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml}action-tendency<http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml%7Daction-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<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<mailto:gerhard.fobe@s2009.tu-chemnitz.de>; Edmon Begoli; christian@becker-asano.de<mailto:christian@becker-asano.de> (christian@becker-asano.de<mailto:christian@becker-asano.de>); kazemzad@usc.edu<mailto:kazemzad@usc.edu>; Tim Llewellynn; www-multimodal@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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>
<mailto: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>>
        <mailto:marcschroeder108@<mailto:marcschroeder108@>__gmail.com<http://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>>
            <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@<mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@>__telekom.de<http://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>>
            <mailto: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>>
                 <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>>
            <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.<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>>
            <mailto: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>>
                 <mailto:Samuel.Cruz-Lara@<mailto:Samuel.Cruz-Lara@>__loria.fr<http://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>>
                 <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@<mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@>__telekom.de<http://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.<mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.>__fr
            <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.fr<mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.fr>>
                 <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.<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>> <mailto: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>
            <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> <tel:%2B81%20466%2049%201170>

--
Kaz Ashimura, W3C Activity Lead for Web&TV, MMI and Voice

Tel: +81 466 49 1170<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>
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2014 15:06:45 UTC

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