Re: Collection of req's and design decisions relevant for protocol discussion

Yes, that is fine with me.

On 6/8/11 10:17 AM, "Robert Brown" <Robert.Brown@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Thanks Marc,
> 
> And a week ahead of schedule too!
> 
> I know its short notice, but are people on the protocol group available to
> join the call 30 minutes early tomorrow, like we did last week, so we can
> review this?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Schroeder [mailto:marc.schroeder@dfki.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 8:48 AM
> To: Robert Brown
> Cc: Milan Young (Nuance); Satish Sampath (Google); Glen Shires
> (gshires@google.com); Patrick Ehlen (AT&T); HTML Speech XG; Dan Burnett
> (Voxeo); Michael Bodell; Michael Johnston (AT&T)
> Subject: Collection of req's and design decisions relevant for protocol
> discussion
> 
> Hi,
> 
> as agreed in the recent phone meeting, I have extracted from the draft final
> report the requirements and design decisions that appear relevant for the
> protocol.
> 
> I have taken the liberty to group them by relevant aspects of what to me seem
> relevant aspects of the interaction between UA and SS.
> 
> Comments / improvements very welcome.
> 
> Best,
> Marc
> 
> On 04.06.11 03:20, Robert Brown wrote:
>> I've attached a short document outlining the basic approach I have in mind.
>> 
>> If you're in the protocol group, please review and comment.  (comments
>> from others welcome too)
>> 
>> - thanks
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org
>> [mailto:public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robert Brown
>> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:19 AM
>> To: Milan Young (Nuance); Satish Sampath (Google); Glen Shires
>> (gshires@google.com); Marc Schroeder (DFKI); Michael Johnston (AT&T)
>> Cc: HTML Speech XG; Dan Burnett (Voxeo); Michael Bodell
>> Subject: RE: proposed plan for protocol group
>> 
>> Thanks for this morning's call.
>> 
>> Here are my notes
>> 
>> Overall plan
>> - Add Glen and Patrick to the list of protocol participants.
>> - We agreed on the scope that I sent out on Wednesday
>> - We agreed on the schedule outlined below.
>> - If we can't stabilize the protocol spec on the schedule below, we
>> should change the plan to ensure we express the detailed requirements.
>> (RB: I suggest we decide this in July)
>> - Please don't incorporate anything that potentially has IP issues associated
>> with it.
>> 
>> Basic design approach
>> - Robert will send a document this week, as noted below
>> - We had some discussion on the choice of MRCP.  We won't nececessarily copy
>> MRCP2, but should be inspired by it.
>> 
>> Protocol requirements
>> - Marc volunteers to take a first pass at pulling together the
>> protocol requirements from what we already have, and will get a first
>> draft in the next two weeks, maybe sooner.  (RB: thanks Marc!)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org
>> [public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org] on behalf of Robert Brown
>> [Robert.Brown@microsoft.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 5:32 PM
>> To: Milan Young (Nuance); Satish Sampath (Google); Glen Shires
>> (gshires@google.com); Marc Schroeder (DFKI); Michael Johnston (AT&T)
>> Cc: HTML Speech XG; Dan Burnett (Voxeo); Michael Bodell
>> Subject: proposed plan for protocol group
>> 
>> Here's how I'd like to tackle the protocol work.  If you're in the protocol
>> group (or just interested), please read through this and suggest any tweaks
>> as appropriate.  We'll also discuss this in tomorrow's conf call.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> /Rob
>> 
>> -----
>> Outline
>> 
>> We'll break the work into a sequence of four tasks, with some overlap of
>> tasks #2 and #3.
>> 
>> 1. Agree on the basic design approach
>> 2. Enumerate protocol requirements, based on API spec/requirements 3. 1st
>> draft of the protocol based on those requirements 4. Review&  refine to a
>> "last call" quality bar.
>> 
>> 5/30 - 6/03<-- we are here
>> 6/06 - 6/10 Finish #1 (6/09 conf call: Plan reports from web api and
>> protocol groups)
>> 6/13 - 6/17 1st draft of #2, then start #3
>> 6/20 - 6/24
>> 6/27 - 7/01 Finish #2
>> 7/04 - 7/08 Finish #3 (7/07 conf call: Protocol report/discussion)
>> 7/11 - 7/15 Start #4
>> 7/18 - 7/22
>> 7/25 - 7/29
>> 8/01 - 8/05 Finish #4 (Seems like a reasonable final date for any
>> substantive changes)
>> 8/08 - 8/12 (For the last few weeks, we're just 'baking', fixing any
>> errors we find,
>> 8/15 - 8/19  clarifying as appropriate,  and responding to any
>> external feedback)
>> 8/22 - 8/26
>> 8/29 - 9/02 End of XG of 8/31
>> 
>> -----
>> #1: Agree on the basic design approach
>> 
>> We can get started on #1 straight away.  Those of us who huddled at the end
>> of the last meeting briefly discussed using WebSockets, with the audio sent
>> as a series of binary messages, and signaling as MIME text messages using a
>> subset of MRCP as a starting point.  I'd already started writing some notes
>> along these lines few weeks ago - nothing profound, but it might be a good
>> starting point.  I'll tidy it up and send it out for discussion.  Milan, you
>> had also mentioned you could suggest a subset of MRCP.  I think this would be
>> useful to give us a sense of the scope of work.
>> 
>> Are there any other design approaches people have in mind?
>> 
>> -----
>> #2: Enumerate protocol requirements
>> 
>> #2 is just a matter of sifting through all the agreements the XG's made, and
>> noting the implied protocol requirements.  "Ugh, not *more* requirements
>> documents... Robert are you insane?"  No comment on the latter, but I don't
>> envisage a big production here.  Just an exercise in diligence.  Most of the
>> requirements have been expressed from the point of view of the UA, API or
>> user agent, and I'm concerned that some of the protocol requirements are
>> implied but not explicit.  Better to find those now rather than later.
>> 
>> I suggest that one of us volunteer to take a first pass at this, and share
>> with the group for refinement.  Any volunteers?
>> 
>> -----
>> #3: First draft of the protocol spec
>> 
>> #3 builds on #1, to the point where all necessary functionality is
>> incorporated, at least in a rough draft form, with some hand-waves and plenty
>> of rough edges.  There's no need to complete #2 before starting #3, although
>> I would like to have a draft of #2 before diving into #3 so we can structure
>> the discussion.
>> 
>> -----
>> #4 is refinement, fleshing out missing descriptions, adjusting to fit the
>> specifics of the API, and generally getting to a "last call" quality bar.
>> 
> 
> --
> Dr. Marc Schröder, Senior Researcher at DFKI GmbH Project leader for DFKI in
> SSPNet http://sspnet.eu Team Leader DFKI TTS Group http://mary.dfki.de Editor
> W3C EmotionML Working Draft http://www.w3.org/TR/emotionml/ Portal Editor
> http://emotion-research.net
> 
> Homepage: http://www.dfki.de/~schroed
> Email: marc.schroeder@dfki.de
> Phone: +49-681-85775-5303
> Postal address: DFKI GmbH, Campus D3_2, Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3, D-66123
> Saarbrücken, Germany
> --
> Official DFKI coordinates:
> Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz GmbH Trippstadter
> Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
> Geschaeftsfuehrung:
> Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender) Dr. Walter Olthoff
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes Amtsgericht
> Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313

Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 17:21:50 UTC