W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: scope of root and meaning of public

From: Wendy Atkinson <watkinson@theorom.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 08:18:59 +0200
Message-ID: <013a01c236c7$d3b8f160$c8a8a8c0@computer>
To: "Andrew Hunt" <andrew.hunt@speechworks.com>, "W3C Voice List" <www-voice@w3.org>
Cc: <jf_jackson@hotmail.com>

please remove my name from the distribution list, I do not work in speech
technology any more. Thank you and all the best to everyone in their
research.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Hunt" <andrew.hunt@speechworks.com>
To: "W3C Voice List" <www-voice@w3.org>
Cc: <jf_jackson@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 5:50 PM
Subject: scope of root and meaning of public


>
> [Email forwarded at Jim Jackson's request -- original email did not reach
the list]
>
> ====================================================================
> Subject: scope of root and meaning of public
> Date:    Thu, 04 Jul 2002 08:51:16 -0400
> Fom:     "jim jackson" <jf_jackson@hotmail.com>
> To:      www-voice@w3.org
>
> Hi,
>
> The candidate recommendation states in Section 4.7:
> "The rule declared as the root rule may be scoped as either public or
> private."
>
> This is actually a misleading statement because even if the root is
> declared private, it always behaves like a public rule (which is
> good!):
>
> 1. the following sentence of Section 4.7 states that the root is
> always activable:
> "A rule reference to the root rule of a grammar is legal."
> It seems clear this holds even if the rule is private;  this
> impression is confirmed by Section 5.4:
> "A conforming Grammar Processor (...) must be able to activate the
> root, any single public rule, or any set of public rules or roots".
>
> 2. the next parag of Section 4.7 states that the root is always
> activable:
> "The root rule may be activated for recognition."
>
> Now the purpose of the scope of a rule is to set two properties:
> activation and exportation, which is confirmed by Appendix I:
> "- Possible distinction of "activable" and "exported" rules (currently
> merged as "public")".
>
> In fact, I think that setting the scope of the root should not be
> allowed because it can only be public.
>
> About the point of Appendix I, I regreat that the addressed
> distinction is not effective right now but I can live with it; after
> all, being public can be seen from two perspectives: the grammars and
> the engine.
>
> However I am much more surprised by another confusion: being activable
> is considered as being both on/off switchable at engine run-time, and
> also being the "start symbol" (as defined in [HU79]:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/speech-grammar/#ref-hu79).
> Section 3.2 actually reads:
>
> "Rules with public scope may be activated for recognition. That is
> they may define the top-level syntax of spoken input." ("top-level
> syntax" meaning "start symbol" I guess)
>
> Now if you consider the grammar:
> $root = I want to be connected to $people [please];
> $people = $people_1st_floor | $people_2nd_floor ;
>
> When you want to deactivate $people_2nd_floor, you have to declare it
> public, but then, it also becomes a start symbol, which allows for
> undesired spoken utterances.
>
> I find this confusion much more a problem than exportation/activation.
> This issue is even not addressed in Appendix I.  In the same vein, I
> think that the status of the start symbol naturally belongs to the root
and
> only to it.
>
> Regards,
> Jim
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>
>
Received on Monday, 29 July 2002 02:19:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 October 2006 12:48:56 GMT