- From: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:41:05 -0500
- To: <www-voice@w3.org>
Dear Voice Browser Working Group, The Multimodal Interaction Working Group has reviewed the CCXML Last Call Working Draft [1] in response to the WG's request and has prepared the following feedback. Thanks to Raj Tumuluri for preparing the feedback. (Note that this is the same feedback that was originally sent to the Voice Browser WG's group mailing list. We are resending it to this list to make it publicly available.) best regards, Debbie Dahl, MMI WG Chair [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ccxml-20050111/ Feedback from MMI-WG on CCXML LCWD2 - Raj Tumuluri ---------------------------------------------------------------- I) Takeaway for MMI-WG: - designed to complement dialog systems such as VoiceXML by providing advanced (telephony )call-control /conferencing functions - CCXML and VoiceXML implementations are not mutually dependent ( CCXML can support other dialog languages/technologies like SALT) - Relevance to MMI: potential candidate for Container/Interaction Manager(IM) language for implementation II) Summary: - language model supports: * Document Control: These events are detailed in section 6.3 * Dialog Control: These events are detailed in section 7.3 * Event Handling Control: These events are detailed in section 9.3 * Call Control: These events are detailed in section 10 and elements support asynchronous communication - language semantics based on the ECMAScript Compact Profile (ES-CP, also known as ECMA-327) [ECMA327] ( stated goal: execution efficiency ) - "intended to be used in large, real-time telephony platforms managing thousands of lines" and not really targeted towards "battery-powered-embedded systems" - Implementation MAY support interaction with several dialog systems with the selection of the particular technology being based on the MIME type specified when the dialog is initiated - The output of a Connection or Conference can be directed to the inputs of one or more Connections and/or Conferences ( splitting of media streams)and platform MUST support these type of bridges. - A Connection or Conference input can come from the output of only one Connection or Conference. ( two modes can be conferenced to give input to the bigger Conference Object a la russian-doll model in IM ) - Events are queued FIFO ( except for Kill etc.. ) ( EHIA similar to FIA ) Session management : - concurrent independent execution of CCXML and VoiceXML applications (the CCXML and VoiceXML cookie stores are independent) -Authors wishing to correlate CCXML and VoiceXML data at the server can use URL rewriting or alternatively employ the CCXML sessionid variable together with the connectionid or conferenceid as a common, unique key across the CCXML and VoiceXML applications - possible to transfer execution-context to a different session (to other modality component) III) Questions: 1. Given the media-stream/dialog-system independence, should the scope be limited to just telephony-call-control? 2. Not clear on how authors can query the host-environment to get the information on whether or not other dialog-systems ( modailty components for us) that may have been implemented 3. Need well-defined Dynamic Profile Framework (DPF) / System & Environment (S&E) interfaces 4. Section 3.2 - conference technology is implementation dependent, and CCXML implementation may not support all conference features. Is there any mechanism for remote application to discover which service it supports? 5. CCXML provides one particular call control model and service environment, allowing a flexible integration with voice dialogue systems. But there are other call control models that can support the need of VoiceXML. This picture should be made clear. 6. Variable scope seems unclear: In section 8.4 the language seems to suggest that "CCXML implmentation is responsible to properly initialize the application object and manage updates to application variables as they occur during the life-cycle of the CCXML application". While the CCXML-implementation is responsible for initialization of the application object and its variables, managing those values during the life-cycle is certainly in the application domain and therefore should not be the responsibility of the CCXML-implementation. -- Raj Tumuluri Phone : +1 (732) 417 1683 Fax : +1 (732) 417 1295 Email: raj@openstream.com Openstream Inc Making Communication Smarter! www.openstream.com Vision without execution is Hallucination.......
Received on Monday, 28 March 2005 15:41:53 UTC