- From: Dave Burke <daveburke@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:48:13 +0100
- To: Satish Sampath <satish@google.com>
- Cc: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, Michael Bodell <mbodell@microsoft.com>, Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>, Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>, public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
- Message-ID: <AANLkTimFx5JzcaOj24PkGiW-Q7WS0ZKFHu7-eYtyV8S9@mail.gmail.com>
Yep - I was thinking basically a "JSON binding of EMMA" (either formally or
in spirit) rather than having to expose EMMA in HTML and have recourse to
DOM APIs to parse it.
Dave
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Satish Sampath <satish@google.com> wrote:
> Perhaps it is possible to define a Javascript based object model (i.e. JSON
> definition) which meets the requirements and use cases that we intend to
> address in the first proposal? JSON is extensible by its very nature and can
> scale up as the API grows in future iterations of the proposal.
>
> Cheers
> Satish
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Deborah Dahl <
> dahl@conversational-technologies.com> wrote:
>
>> Developers don't have to understand the complete EMMA specification to do
>> simple things.
>> I also think it's probably not true that we can realistically have a
>> simpler
>> JavaScript object that will meet developers' needs, because developers'
>> needs will grow quickly as they start using speech in web applications.
>> With
>> EMMA, more advanced features have already been standardized and are
>> available for when developers need them. And sooner or later, they do
>> inevitably need more features. This is the progression that I've seen --
>> first, developers think they just want the recognized string. Then they
>> realize they need semantic tags, then they need confidences, then they
>> need
>> the nbest, and so on and so on. It would be very time-consuming to have
>> to
>> keep going back to reinvent the more advanced capabilities just because we
>> started out with a limited idea of what developers were going to want.
>> And,
>> after the fact tacking on of more advanced capabilities also makes it
>> difficult to ensure backwards compatibility. We could spend a lot of time
>> trying to define a simpler JavaScript object and end up with something
>> that
>> either doesn't meet developers' needs and/or is not simple.
>> Another advantage of EMMA is that it is already available as output from a
>> number of speech recognizers so using it promotes interoperability.
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Dave Burke [mailto:daveburke@google.com]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 5:48 PM
>> > To: Michael Bodell
>> > Cc: Bjorn Bringert; Dan Burnett; Deborah Dahl; public-xg-
>> > htmlspeech@w3.org
>> > Subject: Re: R27. Grammars, TTS, media composition, and recognition
>> results
>> > should all use standard formats
>> >
>> > Seems convoluted to force developers to have to understand EMMA when
>> > we could have a simpler JavaScript object. What does EMMA buy the
>> typical
>> > Web developer?
>> >
>> > Dave
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Michael Bodell <mbodell@microsoft.com
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Here's the first EMMA example from the specification:
>> >
>> > <emma:emma version="1.0"
>> > xmlns:emma="http://www.w3.org/2003/04/emma"
>> > xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
>> > xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2003/04/emma
>> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-emma-20090210/emma.xsd"
>> > xmlns="http://www.example.com/example">
>> > <emma:one-of id="r1" emma:start="1087995961542"
>> > emma:end="1087995963542"
>> > emma:medium="acoustic" emma:mode="voice">
>> > <emma:interpretation id="int1" emma:confidence="0.75"
>> > emma:tokens="flights from boston to denver">
>> > <origin>Boston</origin>
>> > <destination>Denver</destination>
>> > </emma:interpretation>
>> >
>> > <emma:interpretation id="int2" emma:confidence="0.68"
>> > emma:tokens="flights from austin to denver">
>> > <origin>Austin</origin>
>> > <destination>Denver</destination>
>> > </emma:interpretation>
>> > </emma:one-of>
>> > </emma:emma>
>> >
>> > Using something like xpath it is very simple to do something like
>> > '//interpretation[@confidence > 0.6][1]' or '//interpretation/origin'.
>> >
>> > Using DOM one could easily do something like
>> > getElementsById("int1") and inspect that element or else
>> > getElementsByName("interpretation").
>> >
>> > If you had a more E4X approach you could imagine result["one-
>> > of"].interpretation[0] would give you the first result.
>> >
>> > The JSON representation of content might be: ({'one-
>> > of':{interpretation:[{origin:"Boston", destination:"Denver"},
>> {origin:"Austin",
>> > destination:"Denver"}]}}).
>> >
>> > In addition, depending on how the recognition is defined there
>> might
>> > be one or more default bindings of recognition results to input elements
>> in
>> > HTML such that scripting isn't needed for the "common tasks" but the
>> > scripting is there for the more advanced tasks.
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Bjorn Bringert [mailto:bringert@google.com]
>> > Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 5:43 AM
>> > To: Dan Burnett
>> >
>> > Cc: Michael Bodell; Deborah Dahl; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
>> > Subject: Re: R27. Grammars, TTS, media composition, and
>> recognition
>> > results should all use standard formats
>> >
>> > I haven't used EMMA, but it looks like it could be a bit complex
>> for
>> a
>> > script to simply get the top utterance or interpretation out. Are there
>> any
>> > shorthands or DOM methods for this? Any Hello World examples to show the
>> > basic usage?
>> >
>> > /Bjorn
>> >
>> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Dan Burnett
>> > <dburnett@voxeo.com> wrote:
>> > > +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/at
>> > >>>> t
>> > >>>> -
>> > >>>
>> > >>> 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
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Bjorn Bringert
>> > Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76
>> > Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ Registered in England Number:
>> > 3977902
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 13:48:52 UTC