RE: Comments to the Last Call Draft: mixed-initiative issues [Email Formatting Correction]

Thank you for your comments on LCWD. Your issues have been registered
and we will get back to you over the next few weeks with our response.
 
thanks again 
 
Scott McGlashan 
 
Dialog team leader, VBWG
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lyndel Mcgee [mailto:Lyndel.McGee@intervoice-brite.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 01:56
To: www-voice@w3.org
Cc: Bogdan Blaszczak
Subject: Comments to the Last Call Draft: mixed-initiative issues [Email
Formatting Correction]


Questions to VoiceXML 2.0, Last Call Working Draft, 24 April 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------
   by Lyndel.McGee@intervoice-brite.com
<mailto:Lyndel.McGee@intervoice-brite.com>  
      Bogdan.Blaszczak@intervoice-brite.com
<mailto:Bogdan.Blaszczak@intervoice-brite.com> 
 
 

We still find the last call draft somewhat ambiguous in the cases
defined 
below.
We believe that additional explanations and/or changes to the draft are 
needed.
 
Problem #1. <initial> in mixed-initiative forms.
------------------------------------------------
Section 2.1.5 specifies (the 2nd sentence):
" To make a form mixed initiative, where both the computer and the human

direct the conversation, it must have one or more <initial> form items
and 
one or more form-level grammars. "
 
That implies that <initial> is a required element of the
mixed-initiative 
form. The examples use <initial>, too. 
However, FIA does not seem to have any provisions to enforce it.
 
Our questions:  
- Is <initial> required for a form to be mixed-initiative ?
- Or, does a form-level grammar alone imply mixed-initiative? 
 
If <initial> is not required, then there seem to be no benefit in
defining 
directed and mixed-initiative forms (a VoiceXML language structure). 
Instead, the directed and mixed-initiative behaviors should be discussed
in 
terms of item modality and grammar types and scoping (VoiceXML use
cases).
 
For example, the following language could be used:
- A 'directed dialog' can be implemented by using form item-level
grammars 
rather than form-level grammars. If it is desired to restrict user
options 
to just the item's grammar, the form item should be made modal.
Otherwise, 
grammars in wider scopes may still accept user utterances (eg. links
with 
'restart', 'new order', etc.) and restart interpretation at a different 
form.
- A 'mixed-initiative dialog' can be implemented by using form-level 
grammars that may return multiple slots and thus allow multiple form
items 
to be filled from a single caller utterance. The <initial> form item can
be 
used in this scenario to prompt for and collect an utterance before 
executing any input items of the form (which may have their own
specialized 
grammars and may potentially capture the recognition results as their
own 
input).
 

Otherwise, if <initial> is required for a form to be mixed-initiative, a

form without <initial> would be a directed form regardless of the
presence 
of a form-level grammar. In such case, any utterances would be processed
in 
the context of individual input items rather than in the form context.
The 
form items will be filled one at a time.
 
 
 
Problem #2. Mapping results from a form-level grammar.
-------------------------------------------------------
Let's consider interpretation of a VoiceXML document where:
- there is a form with multiple fields,
- the form has a form-level grammar that can return multiple slots,
- the fields do not have their own grammars,
- it is a mixed-initiative form (see also the problem #1 above),
- the first recognition result fills some fields, but not all of them,
- another caller utterance is needed to fill the remaining fields.
 
Our questions:
- Is it expected that the form will switch to the 'directed dialog' mode

after the first utterance and then consider only unfilled items for the 
subsequent utterances (see also problem #1 above) ?
- Or, will the form remain in the 'mixed-initiative dialog' mode and
will 
user utterances continue to be mapped to multiple input fields (as the
2nd 
table in section 3.1.6.3 seems to imply) ?
- And, if the form is to remain in the 'mixed-initiative dialog' mode,
can 
the next user utterance overwrite fields that have been already filled
or 
will those fields retain their previous values ?
 
To illustrate the problem, let's assume that:
  - the fields are 'size', 'color', and 'shape',
  - the first utterance is 'big square',
  - the second prompt says 'Please provide the color',
  - the second utterance is 'blue triangle'.
Will the completed form be 'big blue square' or 'big blue triangle' ?
The 2nd table in section 3.1.6.3 should be updated to cover all
(canonical) 
combinations of user input and dynamic states of form components.
 
Any feedback on the above issues will be greatly appreciated.
 
Lyndel McGee
Bogdan Blaszczak

Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2002 09:30:48 UTC