RE: [Dmsp] RE: DMSP vs EMMA

"Burger, Eric" <> Tue, 18 April 2006 21:50 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVy5y-0000yb-JU; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:50:50 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVy5x-0000yW-3p for; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:50:49 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVy5v-0000I3-RG for; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:50:49 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,131,1144036800"; d="scan'208"; a="31442604:sNHT53230728"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Dmsp] RE: DMSP vs EMMA
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:50:45 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [Dmsp] RE: DMSP vs EMMA
Thread-Index: AcZf4ysJ19G7qhtzSWmMRNewWGHM9wACQ+mQANFgLZA=
From: "Burger, Eric" <>
To: "Ferrans James-JFERRAN1" <>, "Chris Cross" <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Distributed Multimodal Synchronization Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

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 [] 
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 2:02 PM
To: Chris Cross;
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.

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