W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > October to December 2002

[dialog] Tingander - VBWG official response to VoiceXML 2.0 Last Call Review Issues

From: Scott McGlashan <scott.mcglashan@pipebeach.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 18:23:31 +0200
Message-ID: <2764A29BE430E64A92EB56561587D2E7107FD4@se01ms02.i.pipebeach.com>
To: <Teemu.Tingander@tecnomen.fi>
Cc: <www-voice@w3.org>

The Voice Browser Working Group (VBWG) has almost
finished resolving the issues raised during the last call
review of the 24 April 2002 VoiceXML 2.0 [1]. Our apologies that 
it has taken so long to respond.

Although your comments were received outside the period of the review,
this is the VBWG's formal response to the issues you raised,
which have been logged in the Working Group's issues list [4].
The VBWG's resolutions have been incorporated into the 13 September
2002 draft of the VoiceXML 2.0 [5]. 

Please indicate before 18 October 2002 whether you are satisfied with
the VBWG's resolutions, whether you think there has been a
misunderstanding, or whether you wish to register an objection.
If you do not think you can respond before 18 October, please let me
know. The Director will appreciate a response whether you agree
with the resolutions or not.

Below you will find:

 1) More information follows about the process we are following.
 2) A summary of the VBWG's responses to each of your issues.

Thank you,

Co-Chair, VBWG

1) Process requirement to address last call issues

Per section 5.2.3 [2] of the 19th July 2001 Process Document, in
order for the VoiceXML 2.0 to advance to the next state (Candidate
Recommendation), the Working Group must "formally address all
issues raised during the Last Call review period (possibly
modifying the technical report)." Section 4.1.2 of the Process
Document [3] sets expectations about what constitutes a formal

  "In the context of this document, a Working Group has formally
  addressed an issue when the Chair can show (archived) evidence
  of having sent a response to the party who raised the
  issue. This response should include the Working Group's
  resolution and should ask the party who raised the issue to
  reply with an indication of whether the resolution reverses the
  initial objection."

If you feel that the response is based on a misunderstanding of
the original issue, you are encouraged to restate and clarify the
issue until there is agreement about the issue, so that the
Working Group may prepare its substantive response.

If the response shows understanding of the original issue but
does not satisfy the reviewer, you may register a formal
objection with the Working Group that will be carried forward
with the relevant deliverables. 

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-voicexml20-20020424/
[2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr.html#RecsCR
[3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/groups.html#WGVotes
[4] http://www.w3.org/Voice/Group/2002/voiceXML-change-requests.htm
(members only)
[5] http://www.w3.org/Voice/Group/2002/WD-voicexml20-20020913.htm
(members only)
(http://www.w3.org/Voice/Group/2002/WD-voicexml20-20020913.zip) (members

2) Issues you raised and responses

In direct communications with Scott McGlashan, 
you raised the following issues registered as dialog change request
R502 and R503 respectively. Our response is given inline after each

[1] Submitting Complex Objects: 

Case was this :

	<field name="order" />
		<prompt> Make Your Order </prompt>
		<grammar mode="voice" src="order.grxml" 
			<submit src="someurl" mode="???">

So if the order is filled with structured object like :
	order: {
	     drink: "coke"
		     pizza: {
		          number: "3"
		          size: "large"
	           	    topping: [ "pepperoni"; "mushrooms" ]

what is the correct way to create POST request and GET request..

like in GET:

Issues rise on arrays (order?); should they be numbered etc. ?

The post request is more complicated to write so i leave it of from

VBWG Response: Accepted. 

VoiceXML 2.0 in April 2002 specification makes it clear that developers
should decompose object themselves for submission, see Section 5.3.8
(default submission: stringOf on object). Decomposition as you suggest
is reasonable and since you control the recomposition at the other end,
any issues with arrays, etc you should be able to resolve yourself. 

[2] Scope of Properties

What is the scoping of properties ? how many, what is the top( field? )
scope. And expr for property would be nice and very usefull while tuning
throught <properties>.  Should property reset back what it was in
scope! or scope attribute for <property > like scope (universal |
| form | dialog | location) "location" what specifies how "deeply" it

<?xml version="1.0"?> 
	<vxml version="2.0" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/vxml"> 
		<property name="noicefilter" value="small"/> 
		<form id="first">
			<field name="location"> 
				<property name="noicefilter"
      			<prompt> Say the location of the person you
like to call. </prompt> 
					<if expr="location$.noicelevel >
						<!-- property
name="noicefilter" value="huge"/ -->

						<prompt> Please
						<goto next="#second">
			<! -- second case how it should work if filled
be here >
		<form id="second">
			<! -- it would be nice to have that propery as
"huge" here by default if it is noicy env.! -->
			<field name="location"> 
      			<prompt> Say the second location of the person
would like to call. </prompt> 
			<filled next="#second">
is the flow following
	1- setProperty ( DOC.scope, "noicefilter", "small" )
	2- setProperty ( FIELD.scope, "noicefilter", "large" )	
	3- Say the location of the person you would like to call. 	
	4(?)- Field gets filled, with high noice level (just example
variable, could be confidence or... )
	5 - FIA exits field scope, goes 2 form scope 
	6 - propery noicefilter resets to small, cause it was it in doc
	7 - FIA searches field location, enters it and sets setProperty
FIELD.scope, "noicefilter", "large" )
	8 - gets filled, executes, goes to #second
	9 - propery noicefilter resets to small, cause it was it in doc
	10 - ....

	Is this what You had in mind ?

VBWG Response: Rejected.

The team has already discussed adding an expr attribute on property and
has previously rejected it. The scope of properties is described at
beginning of Section 6.3 and it seems to be consistent with your


Scott McGlashan
Box 24035/Linnégatan 89 B, 7tr
SE-104 50 Stockholm, Sweden
fax:       +46 8 54590993
office:    +46 8 54590990

Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2002 12:23:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:36 UTC