Re: Incremental recognition, Unobtrusive response

Hey there,

the send and receive tags might be suited to match David's goals in this case. However, I feel that this will lead to an overload of the goals of the voice browser. I mean, you could also capture a noinput with a receive, but I guess that you will never do that.

Maybe, it would be better to focus on the specific handling of these events rather than going for a generic solution in this case. Also merging of different modalities might better be handled in a dedicated fusion engine.

Just my $.02,
Dirk

> Jim Barnett <1jhbarnett@gmail.com> hat am 17. November 2016 um 23:07 geschrieben:
> 
> 
> David,
> 
>    Yes, partial recognition results could probably be merged into a 
> single category with external events.  That's not how the V3 draft is 
> written (external events really must come from outside the VXML 
> interpreter), but we could define a category of asynchronous events that 
> could be internally or externally generated.
> 
> As for how disruptive these asynchronous events would be, I think that 
> would primarily depend on how much we were willing to modify the VXML 
> control model (a.k.a. the FIA) to be more flexible.
> 
> You are right that a more sophisticated language model could probably 
> handle context shifts during recognition.  We should also think of what 
> else might change as the result of the unobtrusive feedback.  For 
> example, might we want to change the volume of prompts while they are 
> playing?  Right now VXML is designed to "package up" a conversational 
> turn - prompts and grammar - and to run them as a block.   With 
> unobtrusive feedback, as with asynchronous events, the model needs to 
> become more flexible.
> 
> There are really two separate questions here:  what we think the right 
> model is for more responsive user interaction, and how we would have to 
> re-write VoiceXML to implement such it.
> 
> - Jim
> 
> 
> On 11/17/2016 4:39 PM, David Pautler wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for sharing that info about the proposed external events 
> > module, Jim. When the draft mentions how disruptive external events 
> > might be to a flow, I would guess most of that complication would 
> > arise for catch's outside of a grammar element. Does that sound right?
> >
> > After reading that draft, it seems to me that Dirk's partial tag might 
> > be subsumed by a catch of an 'externalevent' with an inner 'if' to 
> > check what the event is, and whether other recent events merit an 
> > (unobtrusive) response. And if the response doesn't require jumping 
> > out of the active grammar, we could continue getting partial 
> > interpretations this way.
> >
> > Jim, you also rightly point out that unobtrusive responses slightly 
> > alter the context for the user and may therefore require a change in 
> > grammar. I suspect, though, that language models could be trained with 
> > optional changes in context midway through training examples. What do 
> > you think?
> >
> > Thank you, Deborah, for sharing the Semaine project; I hadn't heard of 
> > it. I'm planning to do a comparative analysis of the three projects 
> > for Dirk's doc.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > David
> >
> 
>

Received on Monday, 21 November 2016 13:59:50 UTC