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

+1
On Oct 22, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Michael Bodell wrote:

> 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 Monday, 25 October 2010 12:39:15 UTC