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

[Gunnar Hellstrom <[e-mail]>]

On 2013-03-10 20:29, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 03/10/2013 09:08 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
>> At 6:16 PM +0000 3/10/13, Keith (Keith) DRAGE wrote:
>>
>>>  My understanding was that the idea was to label a particular media 
>>> stream, rather than (for example) a SIP body.
>>>
>>>  Different media streams could have different labels.
>>
>> Keith is right.  As an example, SIP might be used to setup a call 
>> with an audio stream using English and a video stream using American 
>> Sign Language.
>>
>> SDP also allows other protocols besides SIP to be used to establish 
>> the session.
>
> OK, but that's not what I really was thinking about....
>
> RFC 3282 (and its predecessors as part of the HTTP protocol) 
> distinguished between two distinct fields:
>
> - "Here's what I'm willing to accept" - where prioritization is important
> - "Here's what I'm going to use" - where prioritization is not only 
> unimportant, it's meaningless
>
> It might be good if whatever comes out of this discussion supports 
> making that distinction.
>
> You may also want to think about how language tags interact with 
> direction - if you're talking to an interpreter, where audio going one 
> way is English and what comes back is in Spanish, are you able to mark 
> the RTP session (if that's what you're marking, and not the media 
> stream) as "sending English, receiving Spanish"?
>
> But this level of detail doesn't really belong on the IETF list - 
> which list should we use?

Yes, it will be a balance between complexity and usefulness.
Too little complexity - not sufficient to express the common cases.
Too much complexity - No one will bother registering their profile.

I see a need to declare and negotiate need, preference and capability to 
use different languages and modalities, and the declaration need to be 
directional.

Imagined example:
I prefer to talk English, and I have some capability to talk French
I Prefer to talk, but I am capable of typing
I Need to get text in English or French
I have some benefit of getting spoken English or French, but I cannot 
accept that as the only channel for language perception.

If I want to have a conversation with someone who only has an audio 
terminal, and can talk and understand spoken French, an evaluation of 
our needs would insert a captioned telephony  service in French in the 
call typing a French transcription of the spoken French my callee talks 
to me.

Gunnar


>
>>
>>
>>
>>>   > -----Original Message-----
>>>>  From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
>>>> Behalf
>>>>  Of Harald Alvestrand
>>>>  Sent: 10 March 2013 15:07
>>>>  To: Randall Gellens
>>>>  Cc: Ari Keranen; [e-mail]; Alexey Melnikov; Gunnar Hellstrom; 
>>>> DRAGE,
>>>>  Keith (Keith); Peter Saint-Andre; 
>>>> [e-mail];
>>>>  Flemming Andreasen; Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) Tschofenig; Peter 
>>>> Saint-Andre;
>>>>  Brian Rosen; [e-mail]
>>>>  Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Update on Orlando time for human language draft
>>>>  discussion
>>>>
>>>>  Sorry for barging in late on this thread, but quick questions:
>>>>
>>>>  - what's the right mailing list to post to on this one?
>>>>  - have everyone read RFC 3282 (the standalone "accept-language" 
>>>> spec)?
>>>>
>>>>  Seems to me the desired semantic is more accept-language than
>>>>  content-language.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On 03/10/2013 03:38 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
>>>>  > Hi Everyone,
>>>>  >
>>>>  > Thursday lunch (11:30-1:00) it is.  I'll make a reservation at The
>>>>  > Tropicale (the cafe in the Caribe Royal hotel attached to the
>>>>  > convention center).  Please let me know if you can make it so I can
>>>>  > make sure we have a large enough table.
>>>>  >
>>>>  > Thank you.
>>>>  >
>>>>  >
>>>>  >>  Hi everyone,
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >>  It looks like Thursday lunch (11:30-1:00) works well for everyone
>>>>  >> who has responded so far.  Let's plan on that for now.
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >>  At 9:35 AM -0700 3/9/13, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >>>   It looks like Thursday lunch would
>>>>  >>>   work well.
>>>>  >>>
>>>>  >>>   On 3/5/13 4:47 AM, Randall Gellens wrote:
>>>>  >>>>   Hi all,
>>>>  >>>>
>>>>  >>>>   I created a Doodle poll to see if we can find a time in 
>>>> Orlando
>>>>  >>>> to meet
>>>>  >>>>   face to face.
>>>>  >>>>
>>>>  >>>>   Doodle poll for time at Orlando to discuss open issues and 
>>>> moving
>>>>  >>>>   forward with Human Language Negotiation:
>>>>  >>>> http://doodle.com/uwedikez6etwsf39
>>>>  >>>>
>>>>  >>>>   Link to current version (-02) of draft:
>>>>  >>>>
>>>>  >>>>
>>>>  >>>> 
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gellens-negotiating-human-
>>>>  language-02.txt
>>>>  >>>>
>>>>  >>>>
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >>  --
>>>>  >>  Randall Gellens
>>>>  >>  Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for 
>>>> myself
>>>>  only
>>>>  >>  -------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
>>>>  >>  A child of five would understand this.  Send somebody to
>>>>  >>  fetch a child of five.        --Groucho Marx, "Duck Soup"
>>>>  >
>>>>  >
>>>>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>  mmusic mailing list
>>>>  [e-mail]
>>>>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic