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

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

At 9:27 PM +0100 3/10/13, Gunnar Hellstrom wrote:

>  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.

If possible, I think it may be better to keep service negotiation 
distinct from language negotiation.  Otherwise things get very 
complex.


>>>
>>>>    > -----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


-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
The goal of mechanical engineering is to build better mousetraps.
The goal of genetic engineering is to build better mice.