- From: Deborah Dahl <Dahl@conversational-Technologies.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 May 2021 14:52:58 -0400
- To: <dirk.schnelle@jvoicexml.org>
- Cc: <public-voiceinteraction@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <17fc01d741df$de2db990$9a892cb0$@conversational-Technologies.com>
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
Received on Wednesday, 5 May 2021 18:53:13 UTC