- From: Dirk Schnelle-Walka <dirk.schnelle@jvoicexml.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:59:20 +0100 (CET)
- To: public-voiceinteraction@w3.org
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