- From: Chris Davis <davisc@iivip.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:09:08 -0600
- To: luke@dashjr.org
- CC: www-voice@w3.org
>> Why would the MRCP server be providing a semantic interpretation of its own
That's just Nuance.
>>How should a conforming VoiceXML interpreter handle cases like this?
use the SWI_meaning tag and pull out the value as the semantic
interpretation.
so.. the following:
<SWI_meaning>
{SWI_literal:1 2 3 4}
</SWI_meaning>
results in the input var being:
"1 2 3 4"
Regards,
Chris
--------------------------
Our MRCP server is yielding the following NLSML result for a basic grammar
with no semantic interpretation tags:
<?xml version='1.0'?>
<result>
<interpretation grammar="session:144235924" confidence="100">
<input mode="dtmf">
1 2 3 4
</input>
<instance>
<SWI_literal>
1 2 3 4
</SWI_literal>
<SWI_grammarName>
session:144235540
</SWI_grammarName>
<SWI_meaning>
{SWI_literal:1 2 3 4}
</SWI_meaning>
</instance>
</interpretation>
</result>
Carefully reading over the NLSML and VoiceXML specifications, it seems correct
to assign the full<instance> contents to the VXML variable as an ECMAScript
object structure. However, the application of course is expecting the raw
input string '1 2 3 4', not an object.
Why would the MRCP server be providing a semantic interpretation of its own,
rather than omitting it? How should a conforming VoiceXML interpreter handle
cases like this?
Thanks,
Luke
--
Chris Davis
Interact Incorporated R&D
512-502-9969x117
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 19:09:46 UTC