RE: SpeechRecognitionAlternative.interpretation when interpretation can't be provided

That's a good point. There are lots of use cases where some simple normalization is extremely useful, as in your example, or collapsing all the ways that the user might say "yes" or "no". However, you could say that once the implementation has modified or normalized the transcript that means it has some kind of interpretation, so putting a normalized value in the interpretation slot should be fine. Nothing says that the "interpretation" has to be a particularly fine-grained interpretation, or one with a lot of structure. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bjorn Bringert [mailto:bringert@google.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 9:09 AM
> To: Hans Wennborg
> Cc: Conversational; public-speech-api@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SpeechRecognitionAlternative.interpretation when
> interpretation can't be provided
> 
> I'm not sure that it has to be that strict in requiring that the value
> is the same as the "transcript" attribute. For example, an engine
> might return the words recognized in "transcript" and apply some extra
> textnorm to the text that it returns in "interpretation", e.g.
> converting digit words to digits ("three" -> "3"). Not sure if that's
> useful though.
> 
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:58 PM, 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 13:52:45 UTC