W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-multimodal@w3.org > October 2013

Re: AW: [EmotionML] implementation release and feedbacks

From: Alexandre Denis <alexandre.denis@loria.fr>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 08:29:24 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPYqdFejeHttH+qUWmWeKgfXpTk2dVw9zsW8CQgBdfF4i9bRVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ashimura@w3.org
Cc: "www-multimodal@w3.org" <www-multimodal@w3.org>, Felix Burkhardt <Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de>, Samuel CRUZ-LARA <Samuel.Cruz-Lara@loria.fr>
Hello everyone,
here is what is done in the Loria/Synalp EmotionML implementation with
regards to these two features:

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.

-> this is implemented, I will just need an assert id for this assertion,
for now I consider it as a variant of assertion 420, but it may be a new one


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.

-> the question is what exactly it means to implement this feature. For the
Loria/Synalp EmotionML implementation, it is possible to validate both an
EmotionML document or a standalone emotion. I added a way to validate all
emotions that are found in a non-EmotionML document, but I'm not 100% sure
that's what you mean by implementing this feature.

best regards,
Alexandre Denis




On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org> wrote:

> 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/<http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/**2013/emotionml-ir/<http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/2013/emotionml-ir/>
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/**Process-20040205/tr.html#**maturity-levels<http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#maturity-levels>
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/www-multimodal/2013May/**
> 0000.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013May/0000.html>
> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-**emotionml-20130416/emotionml.**xsd<http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/emotionml.xsd>
> [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-**emotionml-20130416/emotionml-**
> fragments.xsd<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, Iím indeed very happy you work with EmotionML and grateful
>> you do such a thorough job in revising it!
>>
>> Itís just itíll take me/us some time to react on this, sorry about this.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Felix
>>
>> *Von:*Alexandre Denis [mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.**fr<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/<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/<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/<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<http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/2013/emotionml-ir/#test_class>
>>
>> - "schema" refers to the schemas
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/**emotionml/emotionml.xsd<http://www.w3.org/TR/emotionml/emotionml.xsd>and
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/**emotionml/emotionml-fragments.**xsd<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<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 &amp; (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 Monday, 28 October 2013 07:29:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:38 UTC