- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:37:42 +0900
- To: Alexandre Denis <alexandre.denis@loria.fr>
- Cc: Patrick Gebhard <patrick.gebhard@dfki.de>, Felix Burkhardt <Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de>, Marc Schröder <marcschroeder108@gmail.com>, Roddy Cowie <r.cowie@qub.ac.uk>, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, gerhard.fobe@s2009.tu-chemnitz.de, Edmon Begoli <ebegoli@gmail.com>, "christian@becker-asano.de (christian@becker-asano.de)" <christian@becker-asano.de>, kazemzad@usc.edu, Tim Llewellynn <tim.llewellynn@nviso.ch>, "www-multimodal@w3.org" <www-multimodal@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9VyhUTnO0vvjQmLxkYkn6gm2gvpxuquKVW4nJWx0Pg00A@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Alexandre, Sorry for the delay. We've fixed the issues on the schema file and the EmotionML vocabulary file, and would like to publish the EmotionML spec as a REC along with the updated EmotionML Vocabulary Note. FYI, we added the following changes to the Schema file for the EmotionML spec: - Replaced "sequence" with "choice" for the <emotion> element in lines 91 and 95. - Changed the "default" to "fixed" for "1.0" in the version attribute of <emotion> element in line 96. - Added [[use="required"]] to the "uri" attribute of the <reference> element in line 32. Please see attached "emotionml-fragments.xsd". Also we added version information to the EmotionML vocabulary file. Please see attached "xml.emotionml". Thanks, Kazuyuki On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org> wrote: > Hi Alexandre, > > Happy New Year! And very sorry for the big delay. > I have been travelling (business travels :) for a while. > > Could you please see inline below? > > > On 12/16/2013 06:43 PM, Alexandre Denis wrote: > >> Hello all, >> yes sure, but since I don't see the new specification, I can only trust >> you that the (small) mistakes are corrected. As for the schemas, >> > > Thanks! > > [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 >>> >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/emotionml-> >> -fragments.xsd >> >> >> The only difference I see with the schemas stored in our implementation >> is the required status of the version attribute of the <emotionml> tag, >> and it's possible I altered the schema myself because of the lack of the >> version in http://www.w3.org/TR/emotion-voc/xml. It is also important to >> fix the version attribute on this document, otherwise every emotionml >> document referring to these vocabularies will fail to pass validation (I >> had to manually disable the corresponding assertion check in the code), >> > > OK. We'll see the detail of the problem and fix the issue of > version handling. > > Thanks! > > Kazuyuki > > > >> best regards, >> Alexandre >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org >> <mailto:ashimura@w3.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi Alexandre, Debbie, Felix, Gerhard, Patrick, Marc, Roddy and all, >> >> Thank you very much for your EmotionML implementations! And I am very >> sorry I did not respond to you earlier. It seems my original message >> did not go out due to some trouble. >> >> As you know, there were the following two features which were not >> explicitly listed on the EmotionML Implementation Report Plan [a]. >> >> ------------------------------__---------------------------- >> >> Two features not listed on the Implementation Report Plan: >> ------------------------------__---------------------------- >> >> Feature1: >> In Section 2.4.1 of the spec [b], 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 [b], 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. >> >> However, according to the responses so far, we have already >> got the following implementations for the above features. >> >> ------------------------------__------------------ >> >> Implementation status of the above two features: >> ------------------------------__------------------ >> >> >> Feature1: 3 implementations >> - Gerhard Fobe: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/ >> 2013Nov/__0000.html >> >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/0000.html >> > >> - Alexandre Denis: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/ >> 2013Nov/__0005.html >> >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/0005.html >> > >> - Patrick Gebhard: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/ >> 2013Nov/__0006.html >> >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/0006.html >> > >> >> Feature2: 4 implementations >> - Gerhard Fobe: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/ >> 2013Nov/__0000.html >> >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/0000.html >> > >> - Debbie Dahl: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/ >> 2013Nov/__0003.html >> >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/0003.html >> > >> - Alexandre Denis: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/ >> 2013Nov/__0005.html >> >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/0005.html >> > >> - Patrick Gebhard: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/ >> 2013Nov/__0006.html >> >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/0006.html >> > >> >> As I reported in October [c], we have already fixed typos in the spec >> and added necessary clarifications to it. Also we have fixed the >> errors in the EmotionML schema. >> >> So I would like to confirm that it is the time for us all to go ahead >> and publish EmotionML as a W3C Recommendation. >> >> Alexandre (as the original commenter), is that OK by you? >> >> [a] http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/__2012/emotionml-irp/ >> <http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/2012/emotionml-irp/> >> [b] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-__emotionml-20130416/ >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/> >> [c] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/ >> 2013Oct/__0010.html >> >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Oct/0010.html >> > >> >> Thanks, >> >> Kazuyuki >> >> >> On 11/08/2013 04:52 AM, Patrick Gebhard wrote: >> >> Dear Felix, >> >> I've updated ALMA (a DFKI EmotionML implementation) last October >> in esp. >> these two features, see attachment. Maybe my email got lost. >> >> Anyway, Feature 1: pass, Feature 2: pass. >> >> Best >> Patrick >> >> Am 07.11.2013 um 18:16 schrieb Marc Schröder >> <marcschroeder108@gmail.com <mailto:marcschroeder108@gmail.com> >> <mailto:marcschroeder108@__gmail.com >> >> <mailto:marcschroeder108@gmail.com>>>: >> >> Hi all, >> >> DFKI's implementation has not-impl for both of these (unless >> it has >> been changed since I left). >> >> Looking forward to seeing EmotionML become a Rec! >> >> Best, >> Marc >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:50 AM, <Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de >> <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de> >> <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@__telekom.de >> >> <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de>>> wrote: >> >> 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 <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org> >> <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org <mailto: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 >> <mailto:ashimura@w3.org> >> <mailto:ashimura@w3.org <mailto:ashimura@w3.org>>] >> >Gesendet: Montag, 28. Oktober 2013 07:57 >> >An: alexandre.denis@loria.fr >> <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.fr> >> <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.__fr >> >> <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.fr>>; >> www-multimodal@w3.org <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org> >> <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org>> >> >> >Cc: Burkhardt, Felix; Samuel.Cruz-Lara@loria.fr >> <mailto:Samuel.Cruz-Lara@loria.fr> >> <mailto:Samuel.Cruz-Lara@__loria.fr >> >> <mailto: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/ >> <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- >> >> <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 >> <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de> >> <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@__telekom.de >> >> <mailto: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 >> <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.fr> >> <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.__fr >> >> <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.fr>>] >> >> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 2. Mai 2013 11:43 >> >> *An:* www-multimodal@w3.org >> <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org> <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org >> <mailto: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.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 >> & (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 <tel:%2B81%20466%2049%201170> >> <tel:%2B81%20466%2049%201170> >> >> >> = >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Web&TV, MMI and Voice >> Tel: +81 466 49 1170 <tel:%2B81%20466%2049%201170> >> >> >> > -- > Kaz Ashimura, W3C Activity Lead for Web&TV, MMI and Voice > > Tel: +81 466 49 1170 > -- Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Web&TV, MMI and Voice Tel: +81 466 49 1170
Attachments
- application/xml attachment: emotionml-fragments.xsd
- application/octet-stream attachment: xml.emotionml
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2014 10:38:20 UTC