- From: Alexandre Denis <alexandre.denis@loria.fr>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:14:51 +0100
- To: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Cc: Felix Burkhardt <Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de>, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, "www-multimodal@w3.org" <www-multimodal@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPYqdFfOuJdpWPn=y+Ey=FxkrDg43RTwKXERpnXQJ0r376zJJA@mail.gmail.com>
Hello all,
yes sure, there are already several assertions that cannot be tested with
the schema. Our implementation double checks the schema and the assertions,
so for us it's not a real problem.
If you are interested in comparing assertions vs schema, here are some
files that we designed to test the validation process:
https://code.google.com/p/loria-synalp-emotionml/source/browse/#svn%2Ftrunk%2Ftests%2Ffail
(note: the new schema is not added yet in our repository)
best regards,
Alexandre
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi Alexandre and Felix,
>
> I think what Debbie says here is correct.
>
> The features of a W3C specification are described in the specification
> draft itself, and Schema file is provided just to check basic syntax
> errors for convenience.
>
> Also the purpose of the Implementation Report Plan [a] is to provide
> clear description of all the features of a specification so that
> developers can check if their implementations work properly (and the
> specification is implementable).
>
> So if some of the EmotionML features can't be checked using Schema, we
> can simply use some test EmotionML file and see whether a specific
> EmotionML implementation can work with the file or not.
>
> For example, to test if assertion 156 is implementable, we can
> use a brief test156.emotionml like:
> [[
> <emotionml xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2009/10/emotionml"
> category-set="http://www.w3.org/TR/emotion-voc/xml#big6"
> version="1.0">
>
> <emotion>
> <info><origin:localization value="bavarian"/></info>
> <!-- <category name="happiness"/> --> <!-- omit category -->
> </emotion>
>
> </emotionml>
> ]]
> and see if the implementation generates an error.
>
> # I think Alexandre's fail_156.xml is also fine :)
>
> [a] http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/2012/emotionml-irp/
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kazuyuki
>
>
> On 02/20/2014 01:11 AM, Deborah Dahl wrote:> 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
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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
> > <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
> > <mailto:gerhard.fobe@s2009.tu-chemnitz.de>; Edmon Begoli;
> > christian@becker-asano.de <mailto:christian@becker-asano.de>
> > (christian@becker-asano.de <mailto:christian@becker-asano.de>);
> > kazemzad@usc.edu <mailto:kazemzad@usc.edu>; Tim Llewellynn;
> > www-multimodal@w3.org <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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>
> >
> > <mailto: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>>
> >
> > <mailto:marcschroeder108@ <mailto:marcschroeder108@>__gmail.com
> > <http://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>>
> >
> > <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@
> > <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@>__telekom.de <http://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>>
> >
> > <mailto: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>>
> > <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>>
> >
> > <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.
> > <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>>
> >
> > <mailto: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>>
> >
> > <mailto:Samuel.Cruz-Lara@
> > <mailto:Samuel.Cruz-Lara@>__loria.fr <http://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>>
> >
> > <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@
> > <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@>__telekom.de <http://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.
> > <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.>__fr
> > <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.fr
> > <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.fr>>
> > <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.
> > <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>> <mailto: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>
> >
>
> --
> Kaz Ashimura, W3C Activity Lead for Web&TV, MMI and Voice
> Tel: +81 466 49 1170
>
>
Received on Monday, 24 February 2014 08:15:31 UTC