- From: Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:24:06 +0100
- To: Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>
- Cc: Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com>, Conversational <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>
The interpretation typically comes from SISR tags that the developer has written. So the developer has control over what values are returned and when. Also, as you mention, the typical way this would be used would be to use "transcript" if "interpretation" is empty. Putting the text in "interpretation" does that for you. It's not a big deal either way though I think. On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com> wrote: > I propose that last sentence be replaced by "If no semantic meaning can be > determined, the attribute must return 'undefined'." > > The reason being that this simplifies the developer's coding. The > interpretation attribute is of type "any" because it typically returns > structured data. > > 'undefined' allows the developer to perform a simple check to determine if > the interpretation is present, and if not, simply use the transcript > attribute, which is always a string. > > Conversely, the developer would have to check for the type of the object(s) > returned in the interpretation attribute, requiring significantly more > complex code. > > /Glen Shires > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com> wrote: >> >> Yes, the raw text is in the 'transcript' attribute. >> >> The description of 'interpretation' is currently: "The interpretation >> represents the semantic meaning from what the user said. This might be >> determined, for instance, through the SISR specification of semantics >> in a grammar." >> >> I propose that we change it to "The interpretation represents the >> semantic meaning from what the user said. This might be determined, >> for instance, through the SISR specification of semantics in a >> grammar. If no semantic meaning can be determined, the attribute must >> be a string with the same value as the 'transcript' attribute." >> >> Does that sound good to everyone? If there are no objections, I'll >> make the change to the draft next week. >> >> Thanks, >> Hans >> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Conversational >> <dahl@conversational-technologies.com> wrote: >> > I can't check the spec right now, but I assume there's already an >> > attribute that currently is defined to contain the raw text. So I think we >> > could say that if there's no interpretation the value of the interpretation >> > attribute would be the same as the value of the "raw string" attribute, >> > >> > Sent from my iPhone >> > >> > On Aug 15, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com> wrote: >> > >> >> OK, that would work I suppose. >> >> >> >> What would the spec text look like? Something like "[...] If no >> >> semantic meaning can be determined, the attribute will a string >> >> representing the raw words that the user spoke."? >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> Yeah, that would be my preference too. >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Conversational >> >>> <dahl@conversational-technologies.com> wrote: >> >>>> If there isn't an interpretation I think it would make the most sense >> >>>> for the attribute to contain the literal string result. I believe this is >> >>>> what happens in VoiceXML. >> >>>> >> >>>>> My question is: for implementations that cannot provide an >> >>>>> interpretation, what should the attribute's value be? null? >> >>>>> undefined? >> > -- Bjorn Bringert Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ Registered in England Number: 3977902
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 13:24:36 UTC