Re: [MMUSIC] Update on Orlando time for human language draft discussion

[Gunnar Hellstrom <[e-mail]>]

On 2013-03-11 00:30, Randall Gellens wrote:
> At 10:31 PM +0100 3/10/13, Gunnar Hellstrom wrote:
>
>>  On 2013-03-10 23:02, Randall Gellens wrote:
>>>  If possible, I think it may be better to keep service negotiation 
>>> distinct from language negotiation.  Otherwise things get very complex.
>>>
>>  That was just a use case.
>>
>>  Do you mean that we should divide it like this:
>>
>>   Imagined example in a call from A to B.
>>   A prefer to talk English, and A has some capability to talk French
>>   A Prefers to talk, but A is capable of typing
>>   A Needs to get text in English or French
>>   A has some benefit of getting spoken English or French, but A 
>> cannot accept that as the only channel for language perception.
>>
>>   A wants to have a conversation with B who declares only an ability 
>> to talk and understand spoken French.
>>
>>  An evaluation of the needs, preferences and capabilities of A and B 
>> would result in that the call is not possible because we have common 
>> capabilities only in the direction from A to the B.
>>  In the return path, from B to A, the only option it to receive 
>> spoken French from the B, while A is depending on getting written 
>> English or Written French.
>>
>>  -----
>>
>>  This information can then be used in a separate service request for 
>> getting a service C that adds rapid conversion of spoken French to 
>> typed French in the path from A to B, still letting the spoken French 
>> also pass over to A.
>
>
> It's very easy to add complexity in order to solve more aspects of the 
> problem.  I think we need to work very hard to keep this mechanism, at 
> least initially, very simple.
>
Yes, so I suggest that we now add a number of use cases, both simple and 
complex and then sort out which cases can be covered without getting 
lost in complexity.

/Gunnar