- From: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:11:18 -0500
- To: <Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de>, <alexandre.denis@loria.fr>
- Cc: <ashimura@w3.org>, <www-multimodal@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <05df01cf2d8d$38f54330$aadfc990$@conversational-technologies.com>
Hi Felix,
Thanks for your succinct summary of the constraints on an XML Schema based
approach to describing this feature.
If there is a Schema-based approach, then of course it would be good to
describe the feature in the Schema, but features of a W3C specification are
required to be describable in a Schema. The text of the specification
defines the language, not the Schema. So we should not spend a huge amount
of time trying to make the Schema describe this feature.
Best regards,
Debbie
From: Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de [mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:06 AM
To: alexandre.denis@loria.fr
Cc: ashimura@w3.org; dahl@conversational-technologies.com;
www-multimodal@w3.org
Subject: AW: [EmotionML] Additional implementation feedback and Rec
publication (was Re: [EmotionML] implementation release and feedbacks)
Very sorry, Alexandre, you’re right, I mixed up the files and used the old
version.
I did some testing and it seems you’re right again, the problem seems that ,
in a choice, if one element has minOccurs=0 this goes for all elements, even
if minOccurs=1 is stated, a behavior I find very unexpected.
We have to find a solution if this can be stated at all in XML schema.
To state the problem once more (as I understood it):
We need to find a possibility to enforce
- That an element has children
- Some are optional, at most once
- A Group of elements is required (one of them at least once)
- The order is not restricted.
If we cannot state this, assertion 156 cannot be tested by automatic Schema
validation.
Regards,
Felix
Von: Alexandre Denis [mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.fr]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Februar 2014 15:21
An: Burkhardt, Felix
Cc: Kazuyuki Ashimura; Deborah Dahl; www-multimodal@w3.org
Betreff: Re: [EmotionML] Additional implementation feedback and Rec
publication (was Re: [EmotionML] implementation release and feedbacks)
Hi Felix,
thanks for the feedback, please note that I used the Kazuyuki version (I'm
not sure what do you refer to with "current file"). I'm actually using the
validation API of Java (jdk1.7.0_51). There might be indeed something wrong
with it or with my use of it.
I cannot test with Notepad++ (I'm on Mac). However, when testing with an
online validator, the fail_156.xml file passes validation with the new xsd:
http://www.utilities-online.info/xsdvalidation/?save=99b401a2-c0ba-4004-a3c8
-c3fefd74d993-xsdvalidation#.UwS5cUJ5N_U
The XSD on the right merges:
- the root schema : http://www.w3.org/TR/emotionml/emotionml.xsd
- the emotionml-fragments.xsd sent by Kazuyuki
Nevertheless, when testing the same fail_156.xml with the schemas available
on the EmotionML page:
http://www.utilities-online.info/xsdvalidation/?save=f7d401df-c512-48bb-9062
-f97d676b13e0-xsdvalidation#.UwS7Z0J5N_U
It does not pass the validation as expected with the same result that you
have (so that's why I'm not sure of which schema you used).
The XSD on the right merges:
- the root schema : http://www.w3.org/TR/emotionml/emotionml.xsd
- the fragments : http://www.w3.org/TR/emotionml/emotionml-fragments.xsd
Are you able to reproduce these results? Maybe I just did something wrong,
best regards,
Alex
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:49 PM, <Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de> wrote:
Hi all
If I try to validate Alexandre’s file with the free Notepad++ editor
I get
Validation of current file using XML schema:
ERROR: Element '{http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml}emotion
<http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml%7Demotion> ': Missing child element(s).
Expected is one of ( {http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml}info
<http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml%7Dinfo> ,
{http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml}category
<http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml%7Dcategory> ,
{http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml}dimension
<http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml%7Ddimension> ,
{http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml}appraisal
<http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml%7Dappraisal> ,
{http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml}action-tendency
<http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml%7Daction-tendency> ).
Which is just what should happen.
So it seems the xsd works with this respect,
perhaps Alexandre’s implementation has really a problem here?
Cheers,
Felix
Von: Alexandre Denis [mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.fr]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 19. Februar 2014 11:53
An: Kazuyuki Ashimura
Cc: Patrick Gebhard; Burkhardt, Felix; Marc Schröder; Roddy Cowie; Deborah
Dahl; gerhard.fobe@s2009.tu-chemnitz.de; Edmon Begoli;
christian@becker-asano.de (christian@becker-asano.de); kazemzad@usc.edu; Tim
Llewellynn; www-multimodal@w3.org
Betreff: Re: [EmotionML] Additional implementation feedback and Rec
publication (was Re: [EmotionML] implementation release and feedbacks)
Hello Kazuyuki,
thanks for the update. Please note that assertion 156 is not tested anymore
(The <emotion> element MUST contain at least one <category> or <dimension>
or <appraisal> or <action-tendency> element). I think this is because of the
<choice> which now seems to accept empty emotions. This could be caused by
the interaction between <choice> and children minOccurs=0, it could also be
a problem with the implementation I'm using. Could you please test the new
schema on the given file with your own validator ? Otherwise it's fine,
previous assertions that were not tested are now tested (172, 410 and 417),
best regards,
Alexandre
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org> wrote:
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>
<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>
<tel:%2B81%20466%2049%201170>
--
Kaz Ashimura, W3C Activity Lead for Web&TV, MMI and Voice
Tel: +81 466 49 1170 <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>
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2014 16:13:58 UTC