Subject: [Speechsc] Enrollment clarifications/questions

From: Brett Gavagni <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 15:15:50 -0400

Hi,

A couple of interpretation questions related to the Voice Enrolled Grammar 
support defined in the current draft. 

Not sure if the draft is intended to be intentional vague in this area to 
facilitate flexibility for vendor implementations.

9.9.  RECOGNIZE

   In addition to performing recognition on the input, the recognizer
   may also enroll the collected utterance in a personal grammar if the
   Enroll-utterance header is set to true and an Enrollment is active
   (via an earlier execution of the START-PHRASE-ENROLLMENT method).  If
   so, and if the RECOGNIZE request contains a Content-Id header, then
   the resulting grammar (which includes the personal grammar as a sub-
   grammar) can be referenced from elsewhere by using "session:foo",
   where "foo" is the value of the Content-Id header.

A couple of questions w.r.t. the intention of the "In addition" wording in 
the paragraph in section 9.9:
Should a client interpret that an enrollment is possible without the 
enablement of any other grammars besides the personal-grammar-uri?
Should a client interpret that an enrollment is possible without a 
performing a grammar matched recognition, or both?

9.16.  ENROLLMENT-ROLLBACK

   The ENROLLMENT-ROLLBACK method discards the last live utterance from
   the RECOGNIZE operation.  This method should be invoked when the
   caller provides undesirable input such as non-speech noises, side-
   speech, commands, utterance from the RECOGNIZE grammar, etc.  Note
   that this method does not provide a stack of rollback states.
   Executing ENROLLMENT-ROLLBACK twice in succession without an
   intervening recognition operation has no effect on the second
   attempt.

Is there a use case that would require the rollback of an enrollment 
result that was generated from non-speech noises (ie. inconsistent or 
clash results)?
It would seem that inconsistent or clashed results are never candidates to 
be "committed", therefore a client request for rollback seems redundant.
What is the expected criteria that should generate a rollback (clash or 
inconsistent repetition)?
What is the expected acceptance or rejection of enrollment result criteria 
(clash detection, consistent or inconsistent repetition)? , and is there a 
use case where an inconsistent repetition is not considered basically 
useless?

9.17.  END-PHRASE-ENROLLMENT

   The END-PHRASE-ENROLLMENT method may be called ONLY during an active
   phrase enrollment session.  It MUST NOT be called during an ongoing
   RECOGNIZE operation.  It should be called when successive calls to
   RECOGNIZE have succeeded and Num-Repetitions-Still-Needed has been
   returned as 0 in the RECOGNITION-COMPLETE event to commit the new
   phrase in the grammar.  Alternatively, it can be called by specifying
   the Abort-Phrase-Enrollment header to abort the phrase enrollment
   session.

   If the client has specified Save-Best-Waveform as true in the START-
   PHRASE-ENROLLMENT request, then the response SHOULD contain the
   location/URI of a recording of the best repetition of the learned
   phrase.

Propose consistency wording change to the following statement in section 
9.17:
from:
"It should be called when successive calls to
 RECOGNIZE have succeeded and Num-Repetitions-Still-Needed has been
 returned as 0 in the RECOGNITION-COMPLETE event to commit the new
 phrase in the grammar."

to: 
"It MUST be called when successive calls to
 RECOGNIZE have succeeded and Num-Repetitions-Still-Needed has been
 returned as 0 in the RECOGNITION-COMPLETE event to commit the new
 phrase in the grammar."

Thanks,

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

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