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

Hi Glenn,

In the case of an SLM, if there’s a classification, I think the
classification would be the interpretation. If the SLM is just used to
improve dictation results, without classification, then the interpretation
would be whatever we say it is – either the transcript, null, or undefined. 

My point about stating that the “transcript” attribute is required or
optional wasn’t whether or not there was a use case where it would be
desirable not to return a transcript. My point was that the spec needs to be
explicit about the optional/required status of every feature. It’s fine to
postpone that decision if there’s any controversy, but if we all agree we
might as well add it to the spec. 

I can’t think of any cases where it would be bad to return a transcript,
although I can think of use cases where the developer wouldn’t choose to do
anything with the transcript (like multi-slot form filling – all the end
user really needs to see is the correctly filled slots). 

Debbie

 

From: Glen Shires [mailto:gshires@google.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 3:48 AM
To: Deborah Dahl
Cc: Hans Wennborg; Satish S; Bjorn Bringert; public-speech-api@w3.org
Subject: Re: SpeechRecognitionAlternative.interpretation when interpretation
can't be provided

 

Debbie,

I agree with the need to support SLMs. This implies that, in some cases, the
author may not specify semantic information, and thus there would not be an
interpretation.

 

Under what circumstances (except error conditions) do you envision that a
transcript would not be returned?

 

/Glen Shires

 

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:08 AM, Deborah Dahl
<dahl@conversational-technologies.com> wrote:

Actually, Satish's comment made me think that we probably have a few other
things to agree on before we decide what the default value of
"interpretation" should be, because we haven't settled on a lot of issues
about what is required and what is optional.
Satish's argument is only relevant if we require SRGS/SISR for grammars and
semantic interpretation, but we actually don't require either of those right
now, so it doesn't matter what they do as far as the current spec goes.
(Although it's worth noting that  SRGS doesn't require anything to be
returned at all, even the transcript
http://www.w3.org/TR/speech-grammar/#S1.10).
So I think we first need to decide and explicitly state in the spec ---

1. what we want to say about grammar formats (which are allowed/required, or
is the grammar format open). It probably needs to be somewhat open because
of SLM's.
2. what we want to say about semantic tag formats (are proprietary formats
allowed, is SISR required or is the semantic tag format just whatever the
grammar format uses)
3. is "transcript" required?
4. is "interpretation" required?

Debbie


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hans Wennborg [mailto:hwennborg@google.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 12:50 PM
> To: Glen Shires
> Cc: Satish S; Deborah Dahl; Bjorn Bringert; public-speech-api@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SpeechRecognitionAlternative.interpretation when
> interpretation can't be provided
>
> Björn, Deborah, are you ok with this as well? I.e. that the spec
> shouldn't mandate a "default" value for the interpretation attribute,
> but rather return null when there is no interpretation?
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com> wrote:
> > I agree, return "null" (not "undefined") in such cases.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Satish S <satish@google.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I may have missed something, but I don’t see in the spec where it
says
> >> > that “interpretation” is optional.
> >>
> >> Developers specify the interpretation value with SISR and if they don't
> >> specify there is no 'default' interpretation available. In that sense
it is
> >> optional because grammars don't mandate it. So I think this API
shouldn't
> >> mandate providing a default value if the engine did not provide one,
and
> >> return null in such cases.



> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Satish
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Deborah Dahl
> >> <dahl@conversational-technologies.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I may have missed something, but I don’t see in the spec where it says
> >>> that “interpretation” is optional.
> >>>
> >>> From: Satish S [mailto:satish@google.com]
> >>> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 7:38 PM
> >>> To: Deborah Dahl
> >>> Cc: Bjorn Bringert; Hans Wennborg; public-speech-api@w3.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Subject: Re: SpeechRecognitionAlternative.interpretation when
> >>> interpretation can't be provided
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 'interpretation' is an optional attribute because engines are not
> >>> required to provide an interpretation on their own (unlike
'transcript').
> As
> >>> such I think it should return null when there isn't a value to be
returned
> >>> as that is the convention for optional attributes, not 'undefined' or
a
> copy
> >>> of some other attribute.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If an engine chooses to return the same value for 'transcript' and
> >>> 'interpretation' or do textnorm of the value and return in
'interpretation'
> >>> that will be an implementation detail of the engine. But in the
absence
> of
> >>> any such value for 'interpretation' from the engine I think the UA
should
> >>> return null.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Satish
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Deborah Dahl
> >>> <dahl@conversational-technologies.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >