RE: [voiceinteraction] minutes May 5, 2021

We can continue discussing the points in the next call, although in the case of the glossary, we ended up deciding to postpone considering a glossary until a later draft. 

Maybe it would be most efficient if you added comments to the GitHub issues that you’re concerned about in the meantime.

 

 

From: dirk.schnelle@jvoicexml.org <dirk.schnelle@jvoicexml.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2021 1:51 PM
To: Deborah Dahl <Dahl@conversational-Technologies.com>
Cc: public-voiceinteraction@w3.org
Subject: Re: [voiceinteraction] minutes May 5, 2021

 

Thank you for the minutes and sorry that I missed today's call.

 

Could we revisit some of the points in the next call as I tend to disagree with some decisions, e.g. the need for a glossary.

 

Dirk

 

Am 05.05.2021 19:37 schrieb Deborah Dahl <Dahl@conversational-Technologies.com <mailto:Dahl@conversational-Technologies.com> >:

https://www.w3.org/2021/05/05-voiceinteraction-minutes.html 
and below as text. 
The next call will be May 19. At that call, we will decide whether to send 
out a 48-hour Call for Consensus to publish the architecture draft. 

   [1]W3C 

      [1] https://www.w3.org/ 

                             - DRAFT - 
                   Voice Interaction Community Group 

05 May 2021 

   [2]IRC log. 

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2021/05/05-voiceinteraction-irc 

Attendees 

   Present 
          debbie, jim, jon 

   Regrets 
          bev 

   Chair 
          Debbie 

   Scribe 
          ddahl 

Contents 

    1. [3]Summary of action items 

Meeting minutes 

   looking at github issue #7 

   assigned to Debbie 

   looking at github issue 8 on dialog strategies 

   jim: maybe we should call this "user-directed" meaning the user 
   chooses the next step 

   jon: scenario for dynamic situation? 

   jim: user options depend on current context, if I wanted to fly 
   to Europe there would be different airports than if I wanted to 
   fly to Asia 
   . or user just enters the airport name, whatever it is 
   . user is not restricted 
   . difference is whether the user selects the option or 
   generates the option 
   . just say "other" for now 
   . will think about what this should be 

   Action: debbie to assign Jim to this issue 

   debbie: what about smart speaker interaction? 

   jim: the 4th type is just open-ended 
   . user input is unconstrained 

   issue 10: [4]https://github.com/w3c/voiceinteraction/issues/10 
   . we should accept this 

      [4] https://github.com/w3c/voiceinteraction/issues/10 

   A knowledge graph to reason -> add "is used" 

   "the system uses a knowledge graph" avoids passive 

   jim: do we have a publication deadline? 

   jim: will adding a glossary slow us down too much? 
   . it's more important to get this published 

   debbie: I agree 

   jon: terms have been defined within the text, maybe they could 
   be cut and pasted into a glossary 

   [5]https://github.com/w3c/voiceinteraction/issues/13 

      [5] https://github.com/w3c/voiceinteraction/issues/13 

   relationship to OVN Voice Registry 

   jim: Dialog Strategy is different from VRS, should not 
   reference VRS 

   jon: let's wait until the VRS is more mature 

   [6]https://github.com/w3c/voiceinteraction/issues/15 

      [6] https://github.com/w3c/voiceinteraction/issues/15 

   debbie: let's continue discussion with dirk 

   jim: clarify in text? 

   debbie: let's talk about [7]https://github.com/w3c/ 
   voiceinteraction/issues/17 next time 

      [7] https://github.com/w3c/voiceinteraction/issues/17 

   debbie: we can just publish 
   . after a call for consensus 

   jim: decide on publication next time 

Summary of action items 

    1. [8]debbie to assign Jim to this issue