- From: <Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de>
- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:50:33 +0100
- To: <ebegoli@gmail.com>, <christian@becker-asano.de>, <r.cowie@qub.ac.uk>, <kazemzad@usc.edu>, <tim.llewellynn@nviso.ch>, <patrick.gebhard@dfki.de>, <marcschroeder108@gmail.com>
- CC: <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, <ashimura@w3.org>, <www-multimodal@w3.org>
Dear implementers of EmotionML To make a long story short: Alexandre Denis of Loria did a thorough review and implementation of EmotionML and found several flaws that we managed to fix, now two issues are still open and we need to know from you whether your implementation supports two features, namely: >Feature1: > In Section 2.4.1 of the sepc [1], there is a feature "The end value > MUST be greater than or equal to the start value", which is not > checked in the Implementation Report. > >Feature2: > In Section 2.1.2 of the spec [1], there is a feature "a typical use > case is expected to be embedding an <emotion> into some other > markup", which is not checked in the Implementation Report. Please respond to this mail until 25th of November and state for both features whether it's "pass", "fail" or "not-impl" Please send the answer to the public mailing list: www-multimodal@w3.org EmotionML will then soon become a real recommendation! Thanks a lot, Felix >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >Von: Kazuyuki Ashimura [mailto:ashimura@w3.org] >Gesendet: Montag, 28. Oktober 2013 07:57 >An: alexandre.denis@loria.fr; www-multimodal@w3.org >Cc: Burkhardt, Felix; Samuel.Cruz-Lara@loria.fr >Betreff: Re: AW: [EmotionML] implementation release and feedbacks > >Dear Alexandre and EmotionML implementers, > >Thank you very much for implementing EmotionML, Alexandre! >Also your thorough review on the EmotionML [1] specification and the >Implementation Report [2] is really appreciated. > >We are very sorry it took much longer to get consensus about how to respond >to you and wrap-up the procedure [3] to publish EmotionML as a W3C >Recommendation. > >We the W3C Multimodal Interaction Working Group have already fixed typos >in the spec and added necessary clarifications to it. In addition, we have >generated an updated version of the schema [5, 6]. > >Now the remaining question is how to deal with your comments on the >Implementation Report which wouldn't change the spec itself. > >I talked within the W3C Team about what we should have done from the W3C >Process viewpoint, and it seems we need to make sure that there are enough >implementation experience for the following two features which were not >explicitly described in the published Implementation Report [2]. > >Feature1: > In Section 2.4.1 of the sepc [1], there is a feature "The end value > MUST be greater than or equal to the start value", which is not > checked in the Implementation Report. > >Feature2: > In Section 2.1.2 of the spec [1], there is a feature "a typical use > case is expected to be embedding an <emotion> into some other > markup", which is not checked in the Implementation Report. > >We have already checked with EmotionML implementers (including you) and >it seems we can get several implementations for the above two features as >well. > >Now we would like to ask all the EmotionML implementers to respond to this >message and express if the aobve features are implmented so that we can >finalize the procedure and publish EmotionML as a W3C Recommendation. > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/ >[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/2013/emotionml-ir/ >[3] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#maturity-levels >[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013May/0000.html >[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/emotionml.xsd >[6] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/emotionml- >fragments.xsd > >Sincerely, > >Kazuyuki Ashimura; >for the W3C Multimodal Interaction Working Group > > > >On 05/02/2013 07:00 PM, Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de wrote: >> Congratulations, Alexandre >> >> >Sorry to give you more work! >> >> Not at all, I'm indeed very happy you work with EmotionML and grateful >> you do such a thorough job in revising it! >> >> It's just it'll take me/us some time to react on this, sorry about this. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Felix >> >> *Von:*Alexandre Denis [mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.fr] >> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 2. Mai 2013 11:43 >> *An:* www-multimodal@w3.org; Samuel CRUZ-LARA >> *Betreff:* [EmotionML] implementation release and feedbacks >> >> Hello all, >> >> I'm happy to announce that we released the very first version of our >> EmotionML Java implementation. It is hosted on google code and >> released under the MIT license: >> https://code.google.com/p/loria-synalp-emotionml/ >> >> It is still considered as an alpha version, we would need some users >> to validate its use. And there is still some work on the documentation >> but the core of the code is there. >> >> If we could be listed as an implementation in the next round of the >> implementation report it would be nice. Here is the description: >> >> Alexandre Denis, LORIA laboratory, SYNALP team, France >> >> The LORIA/SYNALP implementation of EmotionML is a Java standalone >> library developed in the context of the ITEA Empathic Products project >> by the LORIA/SYNALP team. It enables to import Java objects from >> EmotionML XML files and export them to EmotionML as well. It >> guarantees standard compliance by performing a two steps validation >> after all export operations and before all import operations: first >> the EmotionML schema is tested, then all EmotionML assertions are >> tested. If one or the other fails, an error message is produced and >> the document cannot be imported or exported. The library contains a >> corpus of badly formatted EmotionML files that enables to double check >> if both the schema and the assertions manage to correctly invalidate >> them. The API is hosted on google code >> (https://code.google.com/p/loria-synalp-emotionml/) and is released under >the MIT License. >> >> Moreover I don't come to you with empty hands, and I have a bunch of >> remarks related to the EmotionML specification. Sorry to give you more >work! >> >> best regards, >> >> Alexandre Denis >> >> *** Comments about EmotionML specification >> >> In what follows: >> >> - "specification" refers to the document at >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/ (version of 16 April >> 2013) >> >> - "assertions" refers to the list of assertions at >> http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/2013/emotionml-ir/#test_class >> >> - "schema" refers to the schemas >> http://www.w3.org/TR/emotionml/emotionml.xsd and >> http://www.w3.org/TR/emotionml/emotionml-fragments.xsd >> >> ** Specification clarification questions >> >> - About relative and absolute timing ? >> >> - Is that possible to mix relative and absolute timing ? >> Intuitively this would seem weird but nothing in the >> >> specification prevents it. >> >> - About consistency of start/end/duration ? >> >> - I think the specification does not enforce the >> consistency of start, end and duration which are >> >> possible alltogether. Hence it is possible to have >> inconsistent triplets (start=0, end=5, duration=10). >> >> - About text nodes ? >> >> - the emotion element can have text nodes children, it is >> not specified how many. Is it possible to intersperse text nodes all >> over >> >> an emotion element ? The fact that an emotion element can >> have text children is not specified in its children list. >> >> - About emotion children combinations ? >> >> - the specification states "There are no constraints on >> the combinations of children that are allowed.", it is maybe confusing >> since >> >> an emotion cannot contain two categories that belong to >> different category-sets or two categories with the same name. >> >> - About default values ? >> >> - some attributes have default values (reference role, >> time ref anchor point, duration, etc.), is it desirable to have a >> default >> >> value also for other attributes, especially for the "value" >> attribute ? For instance, how would you compare <category >> name="surprise"/> >> >> and <category name="surprise" value="1.0"/> ? Are they >> semantically equivalent ? A similar question could be made about the >> "confidence" >> >> attribute, how would you compare <category >> name="surprise"/> and <category name="surprise" confidence="1.0"/> ? >> >> - About the number of <trace> ? >> >> - the specification does not state clearly if it is >> possible to have several <trace> elements inside a descriptor, it is >> stated >> >> "a <trace> element". Maybe it should be stated "If >> present the following child element can occur one or more time: <trace>". >> >> The schema allows that. If this comment is accepted, the >> assertions 215, 224, 235, 245 should also be clarified. >> >> - About conformance ? >> >> - In section 4.3, it is stated "It is the responsibility >> of an EmotionML processor to verify that the use of descriptor names >> and values >> >> is consistent with the vocabulary definition", which is >> true but incomplete with regards to the assertions, >> >> maybe it would be beneficial to specify all the >> assertions that are not under the schema responsability but rather the >> EmotionML processor >> >> (see below) or at least warn that there are many >> assertions not checked by the schema. >> >> ** Discrepancies between schema/assertions/specification >> >> - Assertions not tested by the schema >> >> - I found that the following assertions are not tested by >> the schema : 114, 117, 120, 123, 161, 164, 167, 170, 172, 210, 212, >> >> 216, 220, 222, 224, 230, 232, 236, 240, 242, 246, 410, 417. >> >> There are assertions that are impossible to test with a >> XSD schema I think: >> >> 114, 117, 120, 123, 161, 164, 167, 170 : >> vocabulary set id and type checking >> >> 212, 222, 232, 242 : vocabulary name >> membership >> >> 417 : media type (unless enumerating them) >> >> Some may be possible with some tweaking: >> >> 210, 220, 230, 240 : vocabulary set presence >> >> 216, 224, 236, 246 : <trace> and "value" >> >> There are two "true" errors I think: >> >> 172 : The "version" attribute of <emotion>, >> if present, MUST have the value "1.0" >> >> I think it should not be >> "optional with default value 1.0" but rather "optional with fixed value 1.0" >> >> 410 : The <reference> element MUST contain a >> "uri" attribute >> >> the "uri" attribute is optional >> by default in the schema >> >> - 2.4.1, "The end value MUST be greater than or equal to the start >> value", >> >> - the schema does not check it and there is no assertion >> enforcing it >> >> - 2.1.2, "a typical use case is expected to be embedding an <emotion> >> into some other markup", >> >> - there is no assertion that describe that <emotion> may >> be embedded in another markup, does it imply we could embed other >elements ? >> >> - is a document containing a sole <emotion> a valid >> document (not in the sense of <emotionml> document) ? If yes, maybe an >> assertion clarifiying the use of <emotion> would be useful. >> >> - assertions 105, 155, 601, 606, status "Req=N" >> >> - the assertions mix the presence of <info> and the >> number of <info> elements, while the presence is not restricted, the >> number >> >> MUST be 0 or 1, hence the required status wrt this part >> of assertions should be "Req=Y" >> >> - 2.1.2, "There are no constraints on the order in which children occur" >> >> - the schema does actually restrict the order of >> elements, <info> needs to be first, then the descriptors, then the >> references >> >> ** Invalid documents >> >> (I have not systematically tested examples with non-valid vocabulary >> URIs such as http://www.example....) >> >> - http://www.w3.org/TR/emotion-voc/xml does not comply with assertion >> 110 (hence all examples that refer to vocabularies there also fail) >> >> - 2.3.3 The <info> element >> >> - The last example of this section does not comply with >> assertion 212 since the name "neutral" does not belong to every-day >> categories >> >> - 5.1.1 Annotation of Text, "Annotation of text" Lewis Caroll example: >> >> - In the <meta:doc> element, the character & is found, >> which does not pass XML validation, it should be & (so does the >> example below) >> >> - It also does not comply with assertion 212 since >> Disgust and Anger are not part of every-day categories >> > > >-- >Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Web&TV, MMI and Voice >Tel: +81 466 49 1170
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2013 11:51:08 UTC