Re: Comments on LCWD, application.lastresult$


This is good news, thanks for the clarification.


On 9/13/06, Tobias Göbel <> wrote:
>  Hi,
> I have tested a number of platforms so far which support utterance
> recording. All except one fill the lastresult$ on a NoMatch event. And the
> one that currently doesn't claimed they will fix this some time soon.
> The 2.0 spec says:
> "All of the shadow variables described above are set immediately after any
> recognition. In this context, a <nomatch> event counts as a recognition, and
> causes the value of "application.lastresult$" to be set"
> So it explicitly mentions that lastresult$ must be set in a NoMatch
> scenario.
> To make things clearer, though, I agree that the 2.1 spec could and should
> also explicitly mention this fact.
> In the example you mention, the application.lastresult$.recording is first
> assigned to a variable and then put in the submit's namelist. Is this really
> required? Again, all except one platform I've tested support having the
> application.lastresult$.recording itself in the namelist, without
> assigning it to a variable first. The spec should be clearer about this,
> too.
> Thanks and regards
> Tobias Goebel,-
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Shane Smith []
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 13, 2006 1:35 AM
> *To:*
> *Subject:* Comments on LCWD, application.lastresult$
> Hey Folks,
> I think the behavior of application.lastresult$ needs clarification.  From
> the 2.0 spec:
> The number of application.lastresult$ elements is guaranteed to be greater
> than or equal to one and less than or equal to the system property
> "maxnbest". If no results have been generated by the system, then "
> application.lastresult$" shall be ECMAScript undefined.
> The behavior on most platforms is that this array only exists when a valid
> result occurs. But, in 2.1, we introduce new behavior concerning utterance
> recording.  While recording user utterances on recognition is valuable, it's
> even *more* valuable to gather invalid recordings.... things that triggered
> a nomatch.  In fact, the example from lcwd shows exactly this:
>    <nomatch count="3">
>      <var name="the_recording"
>         expr="application.lastresult$.recording"/>
>      <submit method="post"
>        enctype="multipart/form-data"
>        next="upload.cgi"
>        namelist="the_recording"/>
>    </nomatch>
> Even reading the first 3 paragraphs of section seven give the impression
> that you need to actually have valid recognition for these shadow variables
> to become available.  I have yet to find a 2.1 compliant vendor that has
> offers anything in the lastresult array when a nomatch occurs, and I think
> we should offer some clarification on this change from 2.0. If it's in 2.1,
> then I missed it, sorry.
> Regards,
> Shane Smith

Received on Wednesday, 13 September 2006 13:37:04 UTC