RE: [Dmsp] RE: DMSP vs EMMA

"Ferrans James-JFERRAN1" <> Fri, 14 April 2006 18:02 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FUScL-0002qU-Fl; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:02:01 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FUScL-0002qP-57 for; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:02:01 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FUScI-0001ya-N2 for; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:02:01 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.11/Motgate3) with ESMTP id k3EINliP026511 for <>; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:23:47 -0700 (MST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k3EIDOZ4008181 for <>; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:13:25 -0500 (CDT)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: [Dmsp] RE: DMSP vs EMMA
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:01:56 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [Dmsp] RE: DMSP vs EMMA
Thread-Index: AcZf4ysJ19G7qhtzSWmMRNewWGHM9wACQ+mQ
From: "Ferrans James-JFERRAN1" <>
To: "Chris Cross" <>, <>
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAQ=
X-White-List-Member: TRUE
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 944ecb6e61f753561f559a497458fb4f
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Distributed Multimodal Synchronization Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1629982925=="

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.


From: Chris Cross [] 
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 11:47 AM
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

Dmsp mailing list