RE: R27. Grammars, TTS, media composition, and recognition results should all use standard formats

I agree that SRGS, SISR, EMMA, and SSML seems like the obvious W3C standard formats that we should use.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Deborah Dahl
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 6:39 AM
To: 'Bjorn Bringert'; 'Dan Burnett'
Cc: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
Subject: RE: R27. Grammars, TTS, media composition, and recognition results should all use standard formats

For recognition results, EMMA http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-emma-20090210/ is a much more recent and more complete standard than NLSML. EMMA has a very rich set of capabilities, but most of them are optional, so that using it doesn't have to be complex. Quite a few recognizers support it. I think one of the most valuable aspects of EMMA is that as applications eventually start finding that they need more and more information about the recognition result, much of that more advanced information has already been worked out and standardized in EMMA. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xg-htmlspeech- request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bjorn 
> Bringert
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 7:01 AM
> To: Dan Burnett
> Cc: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> Subject: Re: R27. Grammars, TTS, media composition, and recognition 
> results should all use standard formats
> 
> For grammars, SRGS + SISR seems like the obvious choice.
> 
> For TTS, SSML seems like the obvious choice.
> 
> I'm not exactly what is meant by media composition here. Is it using 
> TTS output together with other media? Is there a use case for this?
> And is there anything we need to specify here at all?
> 
> For recognition results, there is NLSML, but as far as I can tell, 
> that hasn't been widely adopted. Also, it seems like it could be a bit 
> complex for web applications to process.
> 
> /Bjorn
> 
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com> wrote:
> > Group,
> >
> > This is the second of the requirements to discuss and prioritize 
> > based our ranking approach [1].
> >
> > This email is the beginning of a thread for questions, discussion, 
> > and opinions regarding our first draft of Requirement 27 [2].
> >
> > After our discussion and any modifications to the requirement, our 
> > goal is to prioritize this requirement as either "Should Address" or 
> > "For Future Consideration".
> >
> > -- dan
> >
> > [1]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-

> htmlspeech/2010Oct/0024.html
> > [2]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Oct/att

> > -
> 0001/speech.html#r27
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Bjorn Bringert
> Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham 
> Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ Registered in England Number: 3977902

Received on Friday, 22 October 2010 18:58:38 UTC