I: Comments on Last Call Working Draft of Pronunciation Lexicon Specification (PLS) - R100-1,R100-2,R100-3,R100-4

For some strange reason, the attached answer of Paul Bagshaw
was not recorded in the www-voice archive.

Paolo

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: BAGSHAW Paul RD-TECH-REN [mailto:paul.bagshaw@orange-ft.com] 
Inviato: giovedì 27 luglio 2006 22.48
A: Baggia Paolo
Cc: www-voice@w3.org
Oggetto: RE: Comments on Last Call Working Draft of Pronunciation Lexicon Specification (PLS) - R100-1,R100-2,R100-3,R100-4

Thank you for these replies to the points raised.

I have no comments to make on your replies and look forward to seeing the
next PLS publication.

Regards,
Paul
________________________________________
De : Baggia Paolo [mailto:paolo.baggia@loquendo.com] 
Envoyé : jeudi 27 juillet 2006 15:56
À : www-voice@w3.org; BAGSHAW Paul RD-TECH-REN
Cc : Baggia Paolo
Objet : Re: Comments on Last Call Working Draft of Pronunciation Lexicon
Specification (PLS) - R100-1,R100-2,R100-3,R100-4

 
Dear Paul,

we split your request into four chunks:
- R100-1: Point 1. The homograph (heterophone) problem
- R100-2: Point 2. The homophone (heterograph) problem
- R100-3: Point 3. Specification ambiguity
- R100-4: Point 4. Terminology

The following are the four resolutions.

Please indicate whether you are satisfied with the VBWG's resolution,
whether you think there has been a misunderstanding, or whether you wish
to register an objection.

Paolo Baggia, editor PLS spec.

---
Issue R100-1

Proposed Classification: Feature Request 

Resolution: Accepted

We accept your proposal to add an attribute in the PLS as a way of
uniquely matching homographs to pronunciations. 

---
Issue R100-2

Proposed Classification: Feature Request 

Resolution: Deferred

PLS 1.0 was mainly conceived to address issues for SSML and SRGS.
Your proposal is extending the use of PLS to ASR for dictation.

Even if your proposal is very interesting, we'd prefer to defer 
this request to a future version of PLS.

---
Issue R100-3

Proposed Classification: Clarification / Typo / Editorial

Resolution: Accepted

You are right there is a difference in wording between Section 4.4 [1]
and Section 4.9.2 [2]. We propose the following change in Section 4.4.
[1]

OLD:
"The <lexeme> element contains one or more <grapheme> elements,
one or more of either <phoneme> or <alias> elements, and zero 
or more <example> elements."

NEW:
"The <lexeme> element contains one or more <grapheme> elements, 
one or more pronunciations (either by <phoneme> elements or <alias> 
elements or a combination of both), and zero or more <example>
elements."

We think this will solve your concern on this issue.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-pronunciation-lexicon-20060131/#S4.4
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-pronunciation-lexicon-20060131/#S4.9.2

---
Issue R100-4

Proposed Classification: Clarification / Typo / Editorial 

Resolution: Rejected

As consequence of another comment, we resolved to remove the
'orthography' 
attribute from the grapheme element because we do not see its value and 
recognize the benefits of supporting a mixture of script types within 
a grapheme element (which occurs in Japanese, for example).

Consequently, the double use you mention is no more present in the
specification and the definition in the glossary may remain the same.

======


Gruppo Telecom Italia - Direzione e coordinamento di Telecom Italia S.p.A.

================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please send an e_mail to <mailto:webmaster@telecomitalia.it>webmaster@telecomitalia.it. Thank you<http://www.loquendo.com>www.loquendo.com
================================================