- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 03:21:41 +0900
- To: Alexandre Denis <alexandre.denis@loria.fr>
- 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>
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 > & (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
Received on Friday, 17 January 2014 18:22:20 UTC