Re: scope of root and meaning of public

please remove my name from the distribution list, I do not work in speech
technology any more. Thank you and all the best to everyone in their

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Hunt" <>
To: "W3C Voice List" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 5:50 PM
Subject: scope of root and meaning of public

> [Email forwarded at Jim Jackson's request -- original email did not reach
the list]
> ====================================================================
> Subject: scope of root and meaning of public
> Date:    Thu, 04 Jul 2002 08:51:16 -0400
> Fom:     "jim jackson" <>
> To:
> Hi,
> The candidate recommendation states in Section 4.7:
> "The rule declared as the root rule may be scoped as either public or
> private."
> This is actually a misleading statement because even if the root is
> declared private, it always behaves like a public rule (which is
> good!):
> 1. the following sentence of Section 4.7 states that the root is
> always activable:
> "A rule reference to the root rule of a grammar is legal."
> It seems clear this holds even if the rule is private;  this
> impression is confirmed by Section 5.4:
> "A conforming Grammar Processor (...) must be able to activate the
> root, any single public rule, or any set of public rules or roots".
> 2. the next parag of Section 4.7 states that the root is always
> activable:
> "The root rule may be activated for recognition."
> Now the purpose of the scope of a rule is to set two properties:
> activation and exportation, which is confirmed by Appendix I:
> "- Possible distinction of "activable" and "exported" rules (currently
> merged as "public")".
> In fact, I think that setting the scope of the root should not be
> allowed because it can only be public.
> About the point of Appendix I, I regreat that the addressed
> distinction is not effective right now but I can live with it; after
> all, being public can be seen from two perspectives: the grammars and
> the engine.
> However I am much more surprised by another confusion: being activable
> is considered as being both on/off switchable at engine run-time, and
> also being the "start symbol" (as defined in [HU79]:
> Section 3.2 actually reads:
> "Rules with public scope may be activated for recognition. That is
> they may define the top-level syntax of spoken input." ("top-level
> syntax" meaning "start symbol" I guess)
> Now if you consider the grammar:
> $root = I want to be connected to $people [please];
> $people = $people_1st_floor | $people_2nd_floor ;
> When you want to deactivate $people_2nd_floor, you have to declare it
> public, but then, it also becomes a start symbol, which allows for
> undesired spoken utterances.
> I find this confusion much more a problem than exportation/activation.
> This issue is even not addressed in Appendix I.  In the same vein, I
> think that the status of the start symbol naturally belongs to the root
> only to it.
> Regards,
> Jim
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:

Received on Monday, 29 July 2002 02:19:36 UTC