R: [Dmsp] RE: DMSP vs EMMA

"Baggia Paolo" <paolo.baggia@loquendo.com> Wed, 19 April 2006 14:52 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FWE2j-0000vE-1C; Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:52:33 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FWE2h-0000v4-6s for dmsp@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:52:31 -0400
Received: from maild.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.233.30]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FWE2e-00074X-6H for dmsp@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:52:31 -0400
Received: from ptpxch009ba020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.240.52]) by maild.telecomitalia.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:52:27 +0200
Received: from PTPEVS106BA020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it ([156.54.241.223]) by ptpxch009ba020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:52:26 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.1830
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: R: [Dmsp] RE: DMSP vs EMMA
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:52:24 +0200
Message-ID: <F534D6940BB4C447874590AC0B295571542249@PTPEVS106BA020.idc.cww.telecomitalia.it>
Importance: normal
Priority: normal
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Dmsp] RE: DMSP vs EMMA
thread-index: AcZju5YpCraLxU+ISF2pkur37+zOWgAANslA
From: "Baggia Paolo" <paolo.baggia@loquendo.com>
To: "Chris Cross" <xcross@us.ibm.com>, "Burger, Eric" <EBurger@cantata.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Apr 2006 14:52:26.0850 (UTC) FILETIME=[DFEF2420:01C663C0]
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c6d4566aad1fef50f784fa8a77ccada7
Cc: dmsp@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dmsp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Distributed Multimodal Synchronization Protocol <dmsp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmsp>, <mailto:dmsp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/dmsp>
List-Post: <mailto:dmsp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmsp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmsp>, <mailto:dmsp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1779844883=="
Errors-To: dmsp-bounces@ietf.org

Chris,

 

EMMA is a good candidate for representing a semantic content. MRCP for instance choose to standardize a former format called NLSML

because EMMA was still not stable enough, so also NLSML would be another candidate and even a serialization of ECMA-262.

 

SISR seems to me feature related to the grammar in use by the applications that should be independent to DMSP, but I might be

wrong.

 

Paolo.

 

________________________________

Da: Chris Cross [mailto:xcross@us.ibm.com] 
Inviato: mercoledì 19 aprile 2006 16.13
A: Burger, Eric
Cc: dmsp@ietf.org
Oggetto: RE: [Dmsp] RE: DMSP vs EMMA

 

Eric,
I think the subject line of this thread is a red herring. DMSP is agnostic on the format of interpretation. It may well be that EMMA is the default that implementors choose. Table 9 shows RESULT_EX type which inclide SI_TYPE and SI. The intent is to allow the negotiation of semantic interpretation type by the endpoints. I show SISR as an example type because at the time of writing it was CR status in the W3C. EMMA is an obvious alternative. But SI type is an application choice orthogonal to the DMSP protocol. We may need to formalize SI_TYPE to include version...

thanks,
chris


Chris Cross
Multimodal Browser Architect
_________________________
IBM Boca Raton
xcross@us.ibm.com
voice 561.862.2102 t/l 975.2102
mobile 561.317.0700
fax 501.641.6727

 "Burger, Eric" <EBurger@cantata.com>



"Burger, Eric" <EBurger@cantata.com> 

04/18/2006 05:50 PM

 

To

 
"Ferrans James-JFERRAN1" <James.Ferrans@motorola.com>om>, Chris Cross/West Palm Beach/IBM@IBMUS



cc


<dmsp@ietf.org>



Subject


RE: [Dmsp] RE: DMSP vs EMMA

 






I'm not a fan of tunneling MRCPv2.  If one needs MRCPv2, my guess is one would use MRCPv2.

That said, I would offer the same approach to recognition results as we did in MRCPv2.  Virtually any deviation from EMMA is bound to result in a loss of functionality and you can bet that someone will want some extension that gets into EMMA put into DMSP.

Can anyone give a value to having a proprietary DMSP format that differs from EMMA?

The flip side is there are lots of benefits of reusing EMMA:

Same parser / generator
Same data format
Integrates directly with speech engines and browsers
Always "the latest": don't need to hack DMSP every time EMMA gets a new feature

________________________________________
From: Ferrans James-JFERRAN1 [mailto:James.Ferrans@motorola.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 2:02 PM
To: Chris Cross; dmsp@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Dmsp] RE: DMSP vs EMMA

I strongly agree.
 
An interesting thought experiment would be to consider if CMD_LOAD_SRC could contain an MRCP request and the result be an MRCP response.   According to our studies this is quite inefficient, but if it were possible to (mis)use DMSP in this way, that would indicate that DMSP isn't making assumptions about its payload, and that we're not duplicating MRCP's functionality.
 
Jim

________________________________________
From: Chris Cross [mailto:xcross@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 11:47 AM
To: dmsp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dmsp] RE: DMSP vs EMMA
> DSMP messages are really closed to VoiceXML events / commands 
> (NOINPUT, NOMATCH,...). Multimodal services can be done without 
> VoiceXML browser (without VXML scripts) with only simple ASR/TTS 
> ressources (only launch recognition or synthesis process). Do you 
> plan to open / enlarge the DMSP protocol to "simple" Voice server 
> (ASR+TTS without VoiceXML) ?   

I agree with other's responses to Aurelien. However, we must take care to not duplicate the function of MRCP. The domain we're working in is the sychronization of modalities within a dialog. I think if all an application wants to do is speech enable itself through a low level speech engine interface then MRCP may be the correct route for that.

chris cross



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 <mailto:webmaster@telecomitalia.it>webmaster@telecomitalia.it. Thank you<http://www.loquendo.com>www.loquendo.com
================================================
_______________________________________________
Dmsp mailing list
Dmsp@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmsp