W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > July to September 2001

RE: how are orthographic equivalents for tokens documented?

From: Andrew Hunt <andrew.hunt@speechworks.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 19:30:52 -0400
To: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, <www-voice@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NEBBIPBPMMJJJOKAKJHNIEPKDIAA.andrew.hunt@speechworks.com>
Al,

The WG has visited pronunciation and lexicon issues several times 
in the context of preparing the grammar spec.  The following is my 
best effort at a summary of the overall group position:

1. Version 1.0 of the Grammar Spec will not permit within-grammar
   specification of pronunciations
2. The most recent draft (August 20) adds a <lexicon> element that
   permits reference to an external pronunciation lexicon
3. Review of RUBY found that it was not suited to the needs of the
   grammar pronunciation problem.  I cannot comment on the details
   as other WG members did the review
4. Pronunciation lookup should be outside the scope of the Semantic
   Interpretation spec.  Put differently, the grammar spec should be
   complete and stand-alone on the topic of pronunciations
5. The specification, as currently drafted, is sufficient to produce
   interoperable implementations for a majority of use cases (but
   certainly not all)

FYI, the Voice Browser WG has begun work on a Pronunciation Lexicon
specification with a Requirements document being released earlier 
this year.  I do not anticipate a first working draft of that before
the end of this year.

> It is not clear that WAI can approve this document going to PR until that
> mechanism is defined and it is clear it works.

Could you please expand upon this comment so that we can have a 
sense for the benchmark that the spec will be reviewed against.

Regards,
  Andrew Hunt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-voice-request@w3.org [mailto:www-voice-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Al Gilman
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 4:47 PM
> To: www-voice@w3.org
> Subject: how are orthographic equivalents for tokens documented?
> 
> 
> 
> For speech recognition, one may wish to use as a token a phonetic
> equivalent of a word.  This may be done by phonetic spelling in the ususal
> writing system of the current language, or by external-production-reference
> to a speech synthesis grammar production for a more precise phonetic form,
> if I understand the architecture.
> 
> In any case, it is important to unambiguously capture the relationship to
> the standard spelling of a word, if the token represents a word.  "The
> standard spelling" is meant to indicate "as you should look it up in a
> dictionary."
> 
> There is an XML precedent in RUBY that could be followed for providing this
> capability.  
> 
> Is this planned to be covered in the 'semantic processing' volume?  This is
> an important function.   Please clarify.
> 
> Al
> 
> ["personal opinion" disclaimer]
> 
>   
> 
> It is not clear that WAI can approve this document going to PR until that
> mechanism is defined and it is clear it works.
> 
Received on Monday, 3 September 2001 19:31:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 October 2006 12:48:54 GMT