From speechsc-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 21 17:09:33 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00416 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:09:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9rzj-0006eh-F5 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:16:15 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9rie-0000xF-7k; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:58:36 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9rNP-0006hB-5S for speechsc@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:36:39 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25003 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:36:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.lumenvox.com ([206.169.193.45] helo=lv-svr.lumenvox.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9rTp-00054p-TS for speechsc@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:43:18 -0400 Received: from PROGTHOMAS ([10.0.0.141]) by lv-svr.lumenvox.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:28:17 -0700 From: "Thomas Gal" To: "'Reifenrath, Klaus'" , "'David R Oran'" Subject: RE: [Speechsc] Status & Completion Cause Codes Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:36:00 -0700 Organization: LumenVox LLC MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Thread-Index: AcSbA5pZQm8GWSdNTNuoT5TKRbIF3gFFSt0Q In-reply-to: <2D0CA64CDC33E14DA7AB043B8CC4D2BB0258B90A@svr-exc.domain.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Sep 2004 20:28:17.0140 (UTC) FILETIME=[86EB2340:01C4A019] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f49c97ce49302a02285a2d36a99eef8c Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: speechsc@ietf.org X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ThomasGal@LumenVox.com List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: speechsc-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 42e3ed3f10a1d8bef690f09da16f507a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Comments in-line > -----Original Message----- > From: speechsc-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:speechsc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Reifenrath, Klaus > Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 2:01 AM > To: 'eburger@brooktrout.com' > Cc: 'speechsc@ietf.org'; 'sarvi@cisco.com' > Subject: RE: [Speechsc] Status & Completion Cause Codes > > Hi all, > > error handling is an important issue. Only if MRCP server > return meaningful and well defined error codes MRCP clients > can handle error situations in a suitable way. Therefore I > like to keep this discussion thread alive! I like to get > feedback on my suggestion to follow the 2/4/5 convention for > the status code and the proposed new status codes. > > Some more status codes that seem to be useful: > > 503 Server Time-out > The server did not receive a timely response from an external > server it accessed in attempting to process the request. > I'd rather see this a little better defined. What you describe seems more like a network timeout in the context of the server which I agree with. Server time-out to me implies that the server is overloaded and is redjecting the request due to workload (maybe analagous to a router buffer) but I think this would easily be handled with the SIP BUSY-HERE response? > 504 Message Too Large > The server was unable to process the request since the > message length exceeded its capabilities. > This seems ambiguous, and more a limitation of the implementation. I think this should be folded into a more generic error message. If this is a problem for someones customers than this strikes me as something that is an underlying limitation in something that MRCP is designed to abstract away, and should be dealt with internally. -Tom > Klaus > > -----Original Message----- > From: Reifenrath, Klaus [mailto:Klaus.Reifenrath@Scansoft.com] > Sent: Montag, 16. August 2004 09:04 > To: 'eburger@brooktrout.com' > Cc: 'speechsc@ietf.org'; 'sarvi@cisco.com' > Subject: FW: [Speechsc] Status & Completion Cause Codes > > > Hi Eric, > > I resend this mail, because I think the Status Codes needs to > be discussed together with the Completion Cause codes. > > If we follow the 2/4/5 convention for the Status Code, the > 2/4 convention for the Completion Cause adds not much value, right? > > Klaus > > -----Original Message----- > From: Reifenrath, Klaus [mailto:Klaus.Reifenrath@Scansoft.com] > Sent: Freitag, 7. Mai 2004 13:56 > To: 'speechsc@ietf.org' > Subject: [Speechsc] Status Codes > > > SIP distinguishes between 4xx and 5xx error codes: > 4xx: Client Error -- the request contains bad syntax or > cannot be fulfilled at this server; > 5xx: Server Error -- the server failed to fulfil an > apparently valid request; > > This seems to be useful also for MRCP. > > I think the following status codes should be added to the spec: > > 410 Unsupported Media Type > The server is refusing to service the request because the > message body of the request is in a format not supported by > the requested resource for the requested method. > > Unfortunately there is currently no mechanism in place to > find out which media types are supported by a resource. > > 411 Length Required > The server refuses to accept the request without a defined > Content- Length. The client MAY repeat the request if it adds > a valid Content-Length header field containing the length of > the message-body in the request message. > > 500 Server Internal Error (would replace 407) The server > encountered an unexpected condition that prevented it from > fulfilling the request. The client MAY display the specific > error condition, and MAY retry the request. > > 501 Not Implemented > The server does not support the functionality required to > fulfil the request. This is the appropriate response when the > resource does not recognize the request method and is not > capable of supporting it. > > 502 Version Not Supported > The server does not support, or refuses to support, the MRCP > protocol version that was used in the request message. The > server is indicating that it is unable or unwilling to > complete the request using the same major version as the > client, other than with this error message. > > What error code should be returned by a server if the client > tries to set an unsupported vendor specific parameter? > 403 (unsupported parameter) seems not to be right, because > the MRCP parameter 'vendor-specific-parameter' is supported. > 404 (illegal value for parameter) could be used, but is misleading > > > Regards, > Klaus > > _______________________________________________ > Speechsc mailing list > Speechsc@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc > > _______________________________________________ > Speechsc mailing list > Speechsc@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc > > _______________________________________________ > Speechsc mailing list > Speechsc@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc > _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc From speechsc-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 22 17:35:10 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17903 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:35:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAEsG-0000yb-Ti for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:42:06 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAEZm-0003R7-4g; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:22:58 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CAEXD-0002aF-Bw for speechsc@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:20:19 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16669 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:20:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from salvelinus.brooktrout.com ([204.176.205.6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CAEdq-0000fj-FB for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:27:11 -0400 Received: from nhmail2.needham.brooktrout.com (nhmail2.eng.brooktrout.com [204.176.205.242]) by salvelinus.brooktrout.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i8MLIDir016906 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:18:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by nhmail2.eng.brooktrout.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:15:45 -0400 Message-ID: From: Eric Burger To: "'speechsc@ietf.org'" Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:15:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Subject: [Speechsc] SpeechTek presentations X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: speechsc-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Sarvi made some presentations on MRCPv2 at SpeechTek in New York. The presentations are at the speechsc supplemental web page under the Other Presentations link . If you have public presentations you would like to see posted, send them to me. I still might not post them, but it cannot hurt to ask. _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc From speechsc-bounces@ietf.org Mon Sep 27 11:16:43 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06549 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:16:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CBxMl-0007vL-RB for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:24:40 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CBxBO-0004yz-7g; Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:12:54 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CBetf-0003EL-NB for speechsc@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:41:26 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26367 for ; Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:41:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 206-169-193-40.gen.twtelecom.net ([206.169.193.40] helo=ProgressiveComputingLLC.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CBf18-0006X1-SL for speechsc@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:49:07 -0400 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 12:40:49 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: <2D0CA64CDC33E14DA7AB043B8CC4D2BB02596DF2@svr-exc.domain.com> Thread-Topic: Open standards for speech rec SRGS, SISR, etc. thread-index: AcSgw1LxkcMXk+5sRN2zfop5/jN5HwAAmQQwAHTvFdAAV0hAsA== From: "Thomas Gal" To: "Michael Pust" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:12:52 -0400 Cc: speechsc@ietf.org Subject: [Speechsc] RE: Open standards for speech rec SRGS, SISR, etc. X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: speechsc-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well. Do you know then when EMMA will be done? You tell me that it is much more complete yet that gives no indication of WHEN it will actually be done. Now for us to include it as a NORMATIVE reference (in the parlance of the IETF) it's gotta be finished. We are in the process of last call (I thinnk we still are though we're making minor corrections, mostly silly little things) and when we submit the standard you can't reference something that is not yet finished. NOW, once EMMA is done it is MINOR to add it as a SHOULD support for output, or maybe even switch from MUST support NLSML to SHOULD and make EMMA the must (for backwards compatibility this may not be allowed). So the issue is we cannot get our spec approved as a standard if it had not normative references. We ABSOLUTELY (feel free to argue with me on this but I felt this was consensus) plan on supporting EMMA as an output formant ONCE it is done. However until then I think the powers that be are trying to get permission for us to pull the core of NLSML from the document and include it in the MRCP spec so that we have something that will allow us to finalize a draft stadard and allow people to start building interoperable implementationts which IS the next step before many real changes (if any ) should be made. -Tom > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Pust=20 > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 6:06 PM > To: Thomas Gal > Subject: RE: Open standards for speech rec SRGS, SISR, etc. >=20 > Tom, >=20 > We were in the EMMA meeting at SpeechTek where the EMMA folks=20 > announced a much more complete draft (put out this month). =20 > Its actually pretty cool, and addresses some of the=20 > communication needs I have to get lattice results to natural=20 > language parsers. >=20 > I asked them if they would be harrassing the MRCP folks about=20 > dropping NLSML and adopting the new EMMA working draft for=20 > v2. They said harrassing the MRCP folks was high on their=20 > agenda. Has the MRCP committee heard about this? Are there=20 > any rumblings about possibly picking emma up as an output possibility? >=20 > --Michael =09 _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc From speechsc-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 28 13:57:48 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08065 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:57:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CCMMQ-0006JW-FS for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:05:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CCM0P-0002na-4a; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:43:13 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CCLtO-0001QK-8V for speechsc@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:35:58 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06863 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:35:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CCM1F-0005ro-68 for speechsc@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:44:06 -0400 Received: from westrelay04.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.193.32]) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8SHZMmf337268 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:35:22 -0400 Received: from d03nm119.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by westrelay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i8SHZL6E111438 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:35:21 -0600 To: speechsc@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Jim Sliwa Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:35:19 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM119/03/M/IBM(Release 6.51HF338 | June 21, 2004) at 09/28/2004 11:35:21, Serialize complete at 09/28/2004 11:35:21 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 Subject: [Speechsc] questions on save-waveform X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0502943058==" Sender: speechsc-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f60d0f7806b0c40781eee6b9cd0b2135 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --===============0502943058== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 00606AEA85256F1D_=" This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 00606AEA85256F1D_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Question 1) Looking at latest specification it doesnt seem to state whether the recorded audio is endpointed or not. Should there be some mechanism to state whether the audio returned is endpointed or not? Question 2) The specification implies that save-waveform is only for verification but I can see scenarios where the application wants to have a recorded version of the utterance for any recognize for whatever logging or tracing mechanisms that the application my wish to provide. This seems to map to VoiceXML2.1 tag recordutterance Jim Sliwa Sr. Software Engineer, IBM Pervasive Computing Division Research Triangle Park, NC email ID:spidey@us.ibm.com AOL IM:jamessliwa 919-254-4986 --=_alternative 00606AEA85256F1D_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Question 1) Looking at latest specification it doesnt seem to state whether the recorded audio is endpointed or not.   Should there be some mechanism to state whether the audio returned is endpointed or not?  

Question 2) The specification implies that save-waveform is only for verification but I can see scenarios where the application wants to have a recorded version of the utterance for any recognize for whatever logging or tracing mechanisms that the application my wish to provide.  This seems to map to VoiceXML2.1 tag recordutterance


Jim Sliwa
Sr. Software Engineer, IBM Pervasive Computing Division
Research Triangle Park, NC
email ID:spidey@us.ibm.com
AOL IM:jamessliwa
919-254-4986

 --=_alternative 00606AEA85256F1D_=-- --===============0502943058== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc --===============0502943058==-- From speechsc-bounces@ietf.org Tue Sep 28 14:45:43 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA11339 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:45:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CCN6n-0007Kq-QZ for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:53:54 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CCMlI-0003t3-KE; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:31:40 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CCLgR-000856-Sw for speechsc@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:22:35 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06177 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:22:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 206-169-193-40.gen.twtelecom.net ([206.169.193.40] helo=ProgressiveComputingLLC.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CCLoJ-0005em-MT for speechsc@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:30:44 -0400 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:22:03 -0700 Message-ID: <2D0CA64CDC33E14DA7AB043B8CC4D2BB02596FA6@svr-exc.domain.com> Thread-Topic: Open standards for speech rec SRGS, SISR, etc. thread-index: AcSgw1LxkcMXk+5sRN2zfop5/jN5HwAAmQQwAHTvFdAAV0hAsABiKDkA From: "Michael Pust" To: "Thomas Gal" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0fa76816851382eb71b0a882ccdc29ac Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:31:39 -0400 Cc: speechsc@ietf.org Subject: [Speechsc] RE: Open standards for speech rec SRGS, SISR, etc. X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: speechsc-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b280b4db656c3ca28dd62e5e0b03daa8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Its not branded as complete. Its second working draft, and the open issues in the first working draft are resolved. The document is missing a conformance section, schema, and a DTD. Keep in mind, NLSML is in its first working draft and still has open issues. Also, SISR, which is the only documented way to get a grammar to generate either NLSML or EMMA speech results, is only in its second working draft. And yet VXML 2.0 requires a browser to support SISR. I'm not here to tell the MRCP group to jump to EMMA. At the conference, the EMMA folks indicated that they wanted the MRCP group to re-consider EMMA. I just wanted to find out if the MRCP crowd had heard from the EMMA crowd recently. I don't an opportunity to be missed because the EMMA people failed to call the MRCP people or vice-versa. As the SISR/VXML2.0 relationship shows, sometimes you can't just go off of what the official documents say. SISR is working draft. If the VXML2.0 group took that at face value, they would have no business requiring a browser to support SISR. But since they are talking to eachother, they know that SISR is very implementable as is. I want to make sure the MRCP and EMMA groups are talking to eachother, especially if the adoption of EMMA and the obselecense of NLSML makes communication via MRCP akward.=20 -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Gal=20 Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 12:41 PM To: Michael Pust Cc: 'speechsc@ietf.org' Subject: RE: Open standards for speech rec SRGS, SISR, etc. Well. Do you know then when EMMA will be done? You tell me that it is much more complete yet that gives no indication of WHEN it will actually be done. Now for us to include it as a NORMATIVE reference (in the parlance of the IETF) it's gotta be finished. We are in the process of last call (I thinnk we still are though we're making minor corrections, mostly silly little things) and when we submit the standard you can't reference something that is not yet finished. NOW, once EMMA is done it is MINOR to add it as a SHOULD support for output, or maybe even switch from MUST support NLSML to SHOULD and make EMMA the must (for backwards compatibility this may not be allowed). So the issue is we cannot get our spec approved as a standard if it had not normative references. We ABSOLUTELY (feel free to argue with me on this but I felt this was consensus) plan on supporting EMMA as an output formant ONCE it is done. However until then I think the powers that be are trying to get permission for us to pull the core of NLSML from the document and include it in the MRCP spec so that we have something that will allow us to finalize a draft stadard and allow people to start building interoperable implementationts which IS the next step before many real changes (if any ) should be made. -Tom > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Pust > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 6:06 PM > To: Thomas Gal > Subject: RE: Open standards for speech rec SRGS, SISR, etc. >=20 > Tom, >=20 > We were in the EMMA meeting at SpeechTek where the EMMA folks=20 > announced a much more complete draft (put out this month). > Its actually pretty cool, and addresses some of the communication=20 > needs I have to get lattice results to natural language parsers. >=20 > I asked them if they would be harrassing the MRCP folks about dropping > NLSML and adopting the new EMMA working draft for v2. They said=20 > harrassing the MRCP folks was high on their agenda. Has the MRCP=20 > committee heard about this? Are there any rumblings about possibly=20 > picking emma up as an output possibility? >=20 > --Michael =09 _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc From speechsc-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 29 09:42:15 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02990 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:42:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CCeqq-0006if-C6 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:50:36 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CCeJX-0007LO-Ly; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:16:11 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CCeGM-0006Dw-3p for speechsc@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:12:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00606 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:12:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from salvelinus.brooktrout.com ([204.176.205.6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CCeOO-0006A3-O4 for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:21:13 -0400 Received: from nhmail2.needham.brooktrout.com (nhmail2.eng.brooktrout.com [204.176.205.242]) by salvelinus.brooktrout.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i8TD5kt7004677; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:05:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by nhmail2.eng.brooktrout.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:03:14 -0400 Message-ID: From: Eric Burger To: Michael Pust , Thomas Gal Subject: RE: [Speechsc] RE: Open standards for speech rec SRGS, SISR, etc. Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:03:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 386e0819b1192672467565a524848168 Cc: speechsc@ietf.org X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: speechsc-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8de5f93cb2b4e3bee75302e9eacc33db The two groups are talking to each other, especially since we quite often are the same people. Anyone see me talking to myself in the hallway? I met with Debbie Dahl, W3C MMI chair (who owns EMMA as a deliverable), at the W3C VBWG face-to-face last week. MMI has a very strong, very understandable desire for us to use EMMA. However, they also understand that we cannot wait one more year for MRCPv2. EMMA, if all goes well, should publish by mid-2005. If all goes normal, we're looking more like end-2005. The result of the consensus in the SPEECHSC work group to publish a markup we can use today, and my negotiations with Debbie and Dave Raggett (think of him as MMI's AD), is the following formal liaison, delivered 28 September 2004 to the W3C. Note that one of the purposes of the liaison is to light a fire under MMI to get EMMA out as fast as possible. -- - Eric, in capacity as Chair, not Participant =================================================== Please find below a liaison statement from the IETF SPEECHSC working group to the W3C Multimedia Interaction work group. Best, Leslie Daigle, IETF liaison to the W3C. ========== Title: SPEECHSC Requirements for W3C MMI Standards Source: IETF SPEECHSC Work Group To: W3C Multimedia Interaction Work Group Contact Persons: Name: Eric Burger Tel. Number: +1 603 890 7587 E-Mail: eburger@brooktrout.com Name: Dave Oran Tel. Number: +1 978 264 2048 E-Mail: oran@cisco.com 1. Overall Description: The speechsc Work Group is tasked with developing protocols to support distributed media processing of audio streams. The focus of this working group is to develop protocols to support ASR, TTS, and SV. The working group will only focus on the secure distributed control of these servers. The full description of the SPEECSC Charter, including documents and milestones, can be found here: http://ietf.org/html.charters/speechsc-charter.html A supplemental work group web page can be found here: http://flyingfox.snowshore.com/i-d/speechsc 2. Background to Request The consensus of the SPEECHSC work group is that EMMA is the preferred encoding for speech recognition results for MRCPv2 transport. It is our plan to require MRCPv2-conforming protocol endpoints to support EMMA (currently referenced at ). This will occur once EMMA reaches Candidate Recommendation status. However, it is our understanding that this will not happen until mid-2005. Because there is a demand for MRCPv2 today, we need a normative reference to a recognition markup. The consensus of the SPEECHSC work group is that NLSML (currently referenced at ) is closest to our needs. However, there is no normative (Candidate Recommendation or later) for NLSML. Until the W3C publishes EMMA as a Candidate Recommendation, MRCPv2 endpoints will be required to support a different markup. However, once EMMA is published, it will be the default, required markup for returning recognition results. This markup will not be called NLSML. MRCPv2 will include a negotiation mechanism such that follow-on markups to EMMA will be automatically supported by the protocol. 3. Requests to W3C: A) Please keep us informed to the progress of EMMA. B) Please progress EMMA to Candidate Recommendation as fast as possible. C) It is our intention to reference the NLSML specification, per the W3C copyright rules specified in the NLSML specification, found at _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc From speechsc-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 29 12:56:30 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18742 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:56:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CChss-0002RW-MT for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:04:54 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CChXm-0004cv-Rg; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:43:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CChK2-0001mL-TN for speechsc@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:28:54 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17470 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:28:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zukmail04.zreo.compaq.com ([161.114.128.28]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CChS3-0001yJ-Ty for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:37:15 -0400 Received: from sdcexg11.emea.cpqcorp.net (sdcexg11.emea.cpqcorp.net [16.25.5.6]) by zukmail04.zreo.compaq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C943F102; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:28:18 +0100 (BST) Received: from sooexc02.emea.cpqcorp.net ([16.202.93.45]) by sdcexg11.emea.cpqcorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:28:18 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Speechsc] RE: Open standards for speech rec SRGS, SISR, etc. Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:28:17 +0200 Message-ID: <990C7D7B4096DC49B7BDB5D4F56E5B9F04D0B8@sooexc02.emea.cpqcorp.net> Thread-Topic: [Speechsc] RE: Open standards for speech rec SRGS, SISR, etc. Thread-Index: AcSgw1LxkcMXk+5sRN2zfop5/jN5HwAAmQQwAHTvFdAAV0hAsABiKDkAAC+uSeA= From: "McGlashan, Scott" To: "Michael Pust" , "Thomas Gal" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Sep 2004 16:28:18.0571 (UTC) FILETIME=[5401DDB0:01C4A641] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8de5f93cb2b4e3bee75302e9eacc33db Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: speechsc@ietf.org X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: speechsc-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1a1bf7677bfe77d8af1ebe0e91045c5b Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Just to be clear, VoiceXML 2.0 do NOT require SISR - it is informative not normative. Scott =20 -----Original Message----- From: speechsc-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:speechsc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Pust Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 19:22 To: Thomas Gal Cc: speechsc@ietf.org Subject: [Speechsc] RE: Open standards for speech rec SRGS, SISR, etc. Its not branded as complete. Its second working draft, and the open issues in the first working draft are resolved. The document is missing a conformance section, schema, and a DTD. Keep in mind, NLSML is in its first working draft and still has open issues. Also, SISR, which is the only documented way to get a grammar to generate either NLSML or EMMA speech results, is only in its second working draft. And yet VXML 2.0 requires a browser to support SISR. I'm not here to tell the MRCP group to jump to EMMA. At the conference, the EMMA folks indicated that they wanted the MRCP group to re-consider EMMA. I just wanted to find out if the MRCP crowd had heard from the EMMA crowd recently. I don't an opportunity to be missed because the EMMA people failed to call the MRCP people or vice-versa. As the SISR/VXML2.0 relationship shows, sometimes you can't just go off of what the official documents say. SISR is working draft. If the VXML2.0 group took that at face value, they would have no business requiring a browser to support SISR. But since they are talking to eachother, they know that SISR is very implementable as is. I want to make sure the MRCP and EMMA groups are talking to eachother, especially if the adoption of EMMA and the obselecense of NLSML makes communication via MRCP akward.=20 -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Gal Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 12:41 PM To: Michael Pust Cc: 'speechsc@ietf.org' Subject: RE: Open standards for speech rec SRGS, SISR, etc. Well. Do you know then when EMMA will be done? You tell me that it is much more complete yet that gives no indication of WHEN it will actually be done. Now for us to include it as a NORMATIVE reference (in the parlance of the IETF) it's gotta be finished. We are in the process of last call (I thinnk we still are though we're making minor corrections, mostly silly little things) and when we submit the standard you can't reference something that is not yet finished. NOW, once EMMA is done it is MINOR to add it as a SHOULD support for output, or maybe even switch from MUST support NLSML to SHOULD and make EMMA the must (for backwards compatibility this may not be allowed). So the issue is we cannot get our spec approved as a standard if it had not normative references. We ABSOLUTELY (feel free to argue with me on this but I felt this was consensus) plan on supporting EMMA as an output formant ONCE it is done. However until then I think the powers that be are trying to get permission for us to pull the core of NLSML from the document and include it in the MRCP spec so that we have something that will allow us to finalize a draft stadard and allow people to start building interoperable implementationts which IS the next step before many real changes (if any ) should be made. -Tom > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Pust > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 6:06 PM > To: Thomas Gal > Subject: RE: Open standards for speech rec SRGS, SISR, etc. >=20 > Tom, >=20 > We were in the EMMA meeting at SpeechTek where the EMMA folks=20 > announced a much more complete draft (put out this month). > Its actually pretty cool, and addresses some of the communication=20 > needs I have to get lattice results to natural language parsers. >=20 > I asked them if they would be harrassing the MRCP folks about dropping > NLSML and adopting the new EMMA working draft for v2. They said=20 > harrassing the MRCP folks was high on their agenda. Has the MRCP=20 > committee heard about this? Are there any rumblings about possibly=20 > picking emma up as an output possibility? >=20 > --Michael =09 _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc From speechsc-bounces@ietf.org Wed Sep 29 18:42:59 2004 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26578 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:42:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CCnIE-0004nM-22 for speechsc-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:51:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CCmcI-0007f3-U5; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:08:06 -0400 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CClsG-0005EI-Og for speechsc@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:20:32 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16429 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:20:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from salvelinus.brooktrout.com ([204.176.205.6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CCm0L-00026F-LO for speechsc@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:28:56 -0400 Received: from nhmail2.needham.brooktrout.com (nhmail2.eng.brooktrout.com [204.176.205.242]) by salvelinus.brooktrout.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i8TKvgiO029901 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:57:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by nhmail2.eng.brooktrout.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:54:54 -0400 Message-ID: From: Eric Burger To: speechsc@ietf.org Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:54:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 827a2a57ca7ab0837847220f447e8d56 Subject: [Speechsc] FW: Liaison statement from IETF SPEECHSC WG to W3C Multimedia Int eraction WG X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: speechsc-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: speechsc-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e472ca43d56132790a46d9eefd95f0a5 Formal response from W3C. > -----Original Message----- > From: Deborah Dahl [mailto:dahl@conversational-technologies.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 4:15 PM > To: 'Leslie Daigle'; 'Dave Raggett Dave Raggett' > Cc: 'Eric Burger'; 'Dave Oran'; 'Allison Mankin'; 'Peterson, Jon'; > statements@ietf.org; Martin Duerst; Max Froumentin; Philipp > Hoschka; Wu > Chou; johnston@research.att.com > Subject: RE: Liaison statement from IETF SPEECHSC WG to W3C Multimedia > Interaction WG > > > Leslie, > Thank you for the liason statement and for your interest in EMMA. > We have just published the third Working Draft of EMMA. Our > current plan is to publish a Last Call Working Draft in December, > and a Candidate Recommendation in June, 2005. We would be very > grateful for any comments or feedback you might have on the > current Working > Draft (http://www.w3.org/TR/emma/). This kind of feedback > should be very > useful in both helping us progress EMMA through the W3C Recommendation > process, > as well as in insuring that it becomes a useful and accepted > standard which > meets the requirements of the speech processing industry. The > overlapping > membership between the W3C Multimodal Interaction Working Group and > the MRCPv2 group should be helpful in facilitating > communication across > groups. > > Although NLSML had only reached a 1st WD status, it > has nonetheless proved a useful interim specification. We > hope that MRCPv2 can be revised to normatively reference > EMMA in preference to NLSML once EMMA reaches Candidate > Recommendation. > > Note that the W3C and the IETF have a formal liason process, so I > am copying Martin Duerst, who is responsible for this liason on the > W3C side, on this message. I am also copying Wu Chao and Michael > Johnston, the primary editors of EMMA. > > Best wishes on your work with MRCPv2, and looking forward to > continued interaction with your group. > > regards, > > Debbie Dahl > Chair, W3C Multimodal Interaction Working Group > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Leslie Daigle [mailto:leslie@thinkingcat.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 3:55 PM > > To: Deborah Dahl Deborah Dahl; Dave Raggett Dave Raggett > > Cc: Eric Burger; Dave Oran; Allison Mankin; Peterson, Jon; > > statements@ietf.org > > Subject: Liaison statement from IETF SPEECHSC WG to W3C > > Multimedia Interaction WG > > > > > > > > Please find below a liaison statement from the IETF SPEECHSC working > > group to the W3C Multimedia Interaction work group. > > > > Best, > > Leslie Daigle, > > IETF liaison to the W3C. > > > > ========== > > > > > > Title: SPEECHSC Requirements for W3C MMI Standards > > Source: IETF SPEECHSC Work Group > > To: W3C Multimedia Interaction Work Group > > > > Contact Persons: > > Name: Eric Burger > > Tel. Number: +1 603 890 7587 > > E-Mail: eburger@brooktrout.com > > Name: Dave Oran > > Tel. Number: +1 978 264 2048 > > E-Mail: oran@cisco.com > > > > > > 1. Overall Description: > > The speechsc Work Group is tasked with developing protocols > to support > > distributed media processing of audio streams. The focus of > > this working > > group is to develop protocols to support ASR, TTS, and SV. > > The working > > group will only focus on the secure distributed control of > > these servers. > > > > The full description of the SPEECSC Charter, including documents and > > milestones, can be found here: > > http://ietf.org/html.charters/speechsc-charter.html > > > > A supplemental work group web page can be found here: > > http://flyingfox.snowshore.com/i-d/speechsc > > > > > > 2. Background to Request > > The consensus of the SPEECHSC work group is that EMMA is > the preferred > > encoding for speech recognition results for MRCPv2 transport. > > > > It is our plan to require MRCPv2-conforming protocol > > endpoints to support > > EMMA (currently referenced at ). > > This will > > occur once EMMA reaches Candidate Recommendation status. > > However, it is our > > understanding that this will not happen until mid-2005. > > > > Because there is a demand for MRCPv2 today, we need a > > normative reference to > > a recognition markup. The consensus of the SPEECHSC work > > group is that > > NLSML (currently referenced at > > ) is closest > > to our needs. However, there is no normative (Candidate > > Recommendation or > > later) for NLSML. > > > > Until the W3C publishes EMMA as a Candidate Recommendation, > > MRCPv2 endpoints > > will be required to support a different markup. However, > once EMMA is > > published, it will be the default, required markup for > > returning recognition > > results. This markup will not be called NLSML. > > > > MRCPv2 will include a negotiation mechanism such that > > follow-on markups to > > EMMA will be automatically supported by the protocol. > > > > > > 3. Requests to W3C: > > A) Please keep us informed to the progress of EMMA. > > B) Please progress EMMA to Candidate Recommendation as fast > > as possible. > > C) It is our intention to reference the NLSML specification, > > per the W3C > > copyright rules specified in the NLSML specification, found at > > > > > > -- > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > "Reality: > > Yours to discover." > > -- ThinkingCat > > Leslie Daigle > > leslie@thinkingcat.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ Speechsc mailing list Speechsc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc