Subject: RE: [Speechsc] Speech recognition with SI and NLSML - putting it alltogether

From: "Shanmugham, Saravanan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:02:40 -0800

This sounds reasonable. 
If there is no objectections from anyone else.
The following will be done.
   1. References to Xform will be removed from the document.
   2. Normative reference to Semantic Interpretation for Speech
Recognition specification  would be added to the references section.
   3. Section 9.5.1 would add a server MAY support, requirement for the
above specification to be used with a grammar. 
   4. The suggested text to be added to 9.6.3.3 as a clarification of
what the <instance> element would contain if specification in 2/3 above
is used within a grammar.

Any thoughts.

Sarvi

     -----Original Message-----
     From: Jerry Carter [mailto:[email-masked]] 
     Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 2:44 PM
     To: Dave Burke
     Cc: [email-masked]
     Subject: Re: [Speechsc] Speech recognition with SI and 
     NLSML - putting it alltogether
     
     I concur.  The reference to the XForms data model is out 
     of date.  The May 2001 NLSML draft that is referenced by 
     MRCP v1 dropped the XForms connection in favor of XML 
     Schema.  I don't see any value to adding an unnecessarily 
     complication to NLSML.
     
     As for the element name, <instance> has been used for 
     quite some time and is part of several MRCP v1 implementations.
     
     On Mar 10, 2006, at 1:45 PM, Dave Burke wrote:
     
     > Some further comments on NLSML and its use of "XForms":
     >
     > The original NLSML was based on a proposal (!) for 
     XForms, dating back 
     > to 2000. XForms 1.0 was released as a W3C Recommendation 
     in 2003 and 
     > is VERY different to the one used by NLSML. Said 
     differently, NLSML's 
     > use of XForms is broken.
     >
     > I strongly suggest removing any mention of XForms (but keep the 
     > <instance> element, which is a container element for the 
     serialised 
     > semantic interpretation result - a better element name might be 
     > <semantics> but that's just cosmetic). Note that EMMA, 
     the evolution 
     > of NLSML, is agnostic to the data model - we don't need 
     one either.
     >
     > Dave
     >
     > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Burke" 
     > <[email-masked]>
     > To: <[email-masked]>
     > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:55 PM
     > Subject: [Speechsc] Speech recognition with SI and NLSML 
     - putting it 
     > all together
     >
     >
     >> A key function of the MRCP framework is to perform 
     speech recognition 
     >> and return a semantic result to the MRCP client. To do 
     that with 
     >> baseline interoperability assured, we need sufficient protocol 
     >> machinery (tick), normative data representation formats 
     (partial 
     >> tick), and normative behaviour gluing everything 
     together (partial 
     >> tick).
     >>
     >> Currently:
     >>
     >> o The XML form of SRGS is required. However, SRGS does not 
     >> normatively reference the Semantic Interpretation for Speech 
     >> Recognition (SISR). Therefore, MRCP does not 
     normatively specify a 
     >> semantic interpretation language.
     >>
     >> o We've got an imported version of NLSML. However, we 
     don't say how 
     >> the semantic result gets mapped into the <instance> content.
     >>
     >> Proposal:
     >>
     >>    1. Normatively require the Semantic Interpretation 
     for Speech 
     >> Recognition specification (now Candidate Recommendation).
     >>        See - http://www.w3.org/TR/semantic-interpretation/
     >>
     >>    2. In 9.6.3.3 INSTANCE element, add some text along 
     the lines of:
     >>
     >>        "The <instance> element contains the 
     interpretation of the 
     >> utterance. When
     >>        the Semantic Interpretation for Speech 
     Recognition format is 
     >> used, the
     >>        <instance> element contains the XML serialization of the 
     >> ECMAScript result
     >>        using the approach defined in that specification."
     >>
     >> Dave
     >
     >
     > _______________________________________________
     > Speechsc mailing list
     > [email-masked]
     > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc
     >

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

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