Subject: RE: [Speechsc] EMMA: Extensible MultiModal Annotation markuplanguagesupport?

From: Baggia Paolo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:55:02 +0200

Hi,

the last answers and discussions in this thread seems to confirm
that the direction of MRCPv2 is to allow the use of EMMA when
it will become a W3C Recommendation. Some text should be added
in the future release to say that.
This is fine from us point of view, but a mechanism for asking
a different result format is not present in the current draft.

We think to add that mechanism will allow a smooth transition
from the current situation: always result in "application/nlsml+xml",
to a future one with results in EMMA.

Would it be possible to consider this "negotiation" of the output
result in the next draft?

There are different options to implement it:
a) to extend SDP to leave taht outside of MRCPv2 core protocol
E.g.
a=recogResultFormat:application/nlsml+xml
if present it sets the recognition result for a whole MRCP
session.

b) to add a new recognizer header to set the result format
   for that specific recognition turn.

What do you think?

We are aware the draft is near to be closed, but we think this
will help the passage from NLSML to EMMA.

Regards,
Paolo Baggia, Vittorio Manzone, Patrizio Bergallo (Loquendo)

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Shanmugham, Saravanan
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 8:55 PM
To: Brett Gavagni; Dave Burke
Cc: [email-masked]; David R. Oran; [email-masked]; Jerry
Carter; Reifenrath, Klaus
Subject: RE: [Speechsc] EMMA: Extensible MultiModal Annotation
markuplanguagesupport?

Added to this list. The text proposed by Dave will be added to the next
draft.

Sarvi 

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
[email-masked]. Thank you
====================================================================

_______________________________________________
Speechsc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc

---

From: Jerry Carter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 23:42:50 -0400

I agree that minor changes made today will prevent the need for an 
amended document in the very near future.  Providing for content 
negotiation solves both the EMMA issue and allows for future or 
platform-specific return formats without requiring that the 
specification be iterated.

Of the two suggestions, I prefer the SDP extension as the return format 
is analogous to other SIP media type negotiations.

---

From: Brett Gavagni <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 10:50:52 -0400

Hi,

I agree that the ability for a client to request the format of the 
recognizer result data content would be useful.

I would prefer to see this function defined in a consistent manner with 
the current draft specification; by a client request to enable a session 
parameter via a header (ie. "Result-Data-Type") in a SET-PARAMS or 
RECOGNIZE request, rather than an attribute used for RECOGNIZER session 
negotiation/update. The server should then respond with an accept or 
reject response as it does today for other client requested parameter 
values. Currently, the draft specification doesn't expose the MRCP 
resource configurable parameters in the SDP.

I don't think that enabling platform-specific formats facilitates the 
adoption of a standard specification for speech resources. I  believe that 
the specification should continue to address the required supported 
formats and require new draft iterations including the updated 
specifications. The updated draft iterations would continue to assist with 
potential client/server interoperability issues.

Thanks,

Brett Gavagni 
WebSphere Voice Server Development 
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/pervasive/voice_server/
[email-masked]

Jerry Carter <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked]
09/23/2005 11:42 PM

To
Baggia Paolo <[email-masked]>
cc
"IETF SPEECHSC \(E-mail\)" <[email-masked]>
Subject
Re: [Speechsc] EMMA: Extensible MultiModal Annotation 
markuplanguagesupport?