Re: [Slim] Moving forward on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language

Gunnar Hellström <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se> Mon, 20 November 2017 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5EB6128CD5 for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:14:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uy9AbKMbCVkG for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:14:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bin-vsp-out-02.atm.binero.net (bin-mail-out-06.binero.net [195.74.38.229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 111CE120713 for <slim@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:14:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Halon-ID: b7e98d10-ce37-11e7-96ae-005056917f90
Authorized-sender: gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
Received: from [192.168.2.136] (unknown [83.209.157.37]) by bin-vsp-out-02.atm.binero.net (Halon) with ESMTPSA id b7e98d10-ce37-11e7-96ae-005056917f90; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 22:13:56 +0100 (CET)
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Gunnar_Hellstr=c3=b6m?= <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Cc: slim@ietf.org, Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
References: <CAOW+2dsZtuciPiKMfif=ZmUqBcUd9TyYtL5gPYDp7ZfLOHHDBA@mail.gmail.com> <p06240600d637c6f98ecc@99.111.97.136> <CAOW+2dv5NSiCbW=p1exvPV=PF8YCVdiz2gi-OCxmaUB-jGe22w@mail.gmail.com> <p06240600d6389cd2043f@99.111.97.136> <97d9a6b8-de3b-9f79-483b-18376fcf0ced@omnitor.se> <CAOW+2dtpRoeYkMJzX9vyNUojJDax4DQUU2F4PauBwt1sm-83Hg@mail.gmail.com> <55f2b336-3f14-f49a-ec78-f00b0373db00@omnitor.se>
Message-ID: <bc5b7aa5-7c6a-5096-47d0-01e5ee079e93@omnitor.se>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 22:14:03 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55f2b336-3f14-f49a-ec78-f00b0373db00@omnitor.se>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------D6A18448AEF52BA1A3CDD8B7"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/slim/KOxZ4DVZ2_WcMtiPQIp2DISdCTU>
Subject: Re: [Slim] Moving forward on draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language
X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media <slim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/slim>, <mailto:slim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/slim/>
List-Post: <mailto:slim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:slim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim>, <mailto:slim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 21:14:16 -0000

A new proposal for new text taking in latest discussion of Bernard, Paul 
and Brian:

-----Old text----


      5.4 Undefined Combinations

The behavior when specifying a non-signed language tag for a video media 
stream, or a signed language tag for an audio or text media stream, is 
not defined in this document. The problem of knowing which language tags 
are signed and which are not is out of scope of this document.

-----New text------------
5.4 Media, Language and Modality indications

The combination of Language tags and other information in the media 
descriptions shall be composed so that the intended modality can be 
concluded by the negotiating parties. The following combinations of 
language tags and media provide obvious information about the modality: 
sign language tags in video media indicate signed modality, language 
tags in audio media indicate spoken modality and language tags in text 
media indicate written modality. The examples in this specification are 
all from this set of three obvious language/media/modality combinations.

A sign language can be identified by the existence in the IANA registry 
of language subtags according to BCP 47 [RFC5646] of the language subtag 
with the Type field "extlang" combined with the Prefix field value "sgn".
A specific spoken or written language can be identified by not having 
any such "sgn" Prefix.

Use of language may appear in other media, such as "message" and 
"application". Video media may be used for other modalities than signed, 
e.g. a view of a speaker or text captions. Such use may be supported by 
further work or application specific agreements for evaluation of the 
intended modality.

---------------------------End of new 
text---------------------------------------


Den 2017-11-20 kl. 21:44, skrev Gunnar Hellström:
> Den 2017-11-20 kl. 19:41, skrev Bernard Aboba:
>> Gunnar said:
>>
>> "5.4 Media, Language and Modality indications
>>
>> The combination of Language tags and other information in the media 
>> descriptions should be composed so that the intended modality can be 
>> concluded by the negotiating parties. "
>>
>> [BA] Is the "should" intended to be normative?
> <GH>You are right that SHOULD should be avoided and it would be better 
> to say MUST if we can. But I can imagine limited area applications 
> having application agreements e.g. saying that a non-signed language 
> tag in video media means a view of a talking person.   The negotiating 
> applications know about this agreement so they can make the 
> conclusion. So, if such situations can be included in how the parties 
> make their conclusions, we can change to MUST.
>>
>> The following combinations of language tags and media provide obvious 
>> information about the modality: sign language tags in video media 
>> indicate signed modality... A sign language can be identified by the 
>> existence in the IANA registry of language subtags according to BCP 
>> 47 [RFC5646] of the language subtag with the Type field "extlang" 
>> combined with the Prefix field value "sgn". A specific spoken or 
>> written language can be identified by not having any such "sgn" Prefix.
>>
>> Use of language may appear in other media, such as "message" and 
>> "application". Video media may be used for other modalities than 
>> signed. Such use may be supported by further work or application 
>> specific agreements or indications for evaluation of the intended 
>> modality."
>>
>> [BA] Assume we can confirm the mechanism for distinguishing 
>> signed/non-signed languages, this part seems relatively solid.
>>
>> spoken language tags for audio media indicate spoken modality and 
>> written language tags for text media indicate written modality. The 
>> examples in this specification are all from this set of three obvious 
>> language/media/modality combinations.
>>
>> [BA]  This is where the ground gets less solid - we don't really have 
>> a general mechanism for distinguishing spoken and written modality 
>> among non-signed languages. Perhaps we should just say "language tags 
>> in audio media indicate spoken modality and language tags in text 
>> media indicate written modality".
> Yes, right, that is better wording.
>
> Gunnar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Gunnar Hellström 
>> <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se <mailto:gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>> wrote:
>>
>>     It is not the signed languages that are causing the problem. It
>>     is the spoken and written, when used in other media than the
>>     obvious audio and text media.
>>
>>     And we should specify what is obvious and well defined and not,
>>     so here is a new shorter proposal for section 5.4.
>>
>>     -----Old text----
>>
>>
>>           5.4 Undefined Combinations
>>
>>     The behavior when specifying a non-signed language tag for a
>>     video media stream, or a signed language tag for an audio or text
>>     media stream, is not defined in this document. The problem of
>>     knowing which language tags are signed and which are not is out
>>     of scope of this document.
>>
>>     -----New text------------
>>     5.4 Media, Language and Modality indications
>>
>>     The combination of Language tags and other information in the
>>     media descriptions should be composed so that the intended
>>     modality can be concluded by the negotiating parties. The
>>     following combinations of language tags and media provide obvious
>>     information about the modality: sign language tags in video media
>>     indicate signed modality, spoken language tags for audio media
>>     indicate spoken modality and written language tags for text media
>>     indicate written modality. The examples in this specification are
>>     all from this set of three obvious language/media/modality
>>     combinations.
>>
>>     A sign language can be identified by the existence in the IANA
>>     registry of language subtags according to BCP 47 [RFC5646] of the
>>     language subtag with the Type field "extlang" combined with the
>>     Prefix field value "sgn".
>>     A specific spoken or written language can be identified by not
>>     having any such "sgn" Prefix.
>>
>>     Use of language may appear in other media, such as "message" and
>>     "application". Video media may be used for other modalities than
>>     signed. Such use may be supported by further work or application
>>     specific agreements or indications for evaluation of the intended
>>     modality.
>>
>>     -------------------------------------------------------------------End
>>     of new text---------------------------------------
>>
>>     Den 2017-11-20 kl. 15:55, skrev Randall Gellens:
>>>     At 7:47 PM -0800 11/19/17, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>>
>>>>      "So let's delete Section 5.4 and be done with it.  Neither of
>>>>     the statements is necessary."
>>>>
>>>>      [BA]  I agree that Section 5.4 does not add much value as it
>>>>     stands.
>>>>
>>>>      "Non-signed" is not used outside of Section 5.4, so there
>>>>     would not appear to be a need to define it if Section 5.4 were
>>>>     to be deleted.
>>>>
>>>>      However, the term "signed" is used in 7 other places in the
>>>>     document other than in Section 5.4.
>>>
>>>     But none of those instances are normative.
>>>
>>>>      So we may need to find a reference to define that term.
>>>
>>>     Because the uses of the term are descriptive and mostly
>>>     background, I do not think we need to add a definition or even a
>>>     reference to a definition of the term.
>>>
>>>     --Randall
>>>
>>>>
>>>>      If Gunnar's suggested definition can be confirmed,  this might
>>>>     be as simple as adding a reference to the IANA language tag
>>>>     repository.
>>>>
>>>>      On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Randall Gellens
>>>>     <<mailto:rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
>>>>     <mailto:rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org
>>>>     <mailto:rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      My view of issue #43 remains that we do not need to specify a
>>>>     mechanism for determining which tags are signed.  In the email
>>>>     discussion of the past month or so, I fear we are drifting into
>>>>     adding complexity rather than removing it. I think the way
>>>>     forward is to keep this document as simple as possible.  As
>>>>     Bernard notes in his email of 10/23, there is no benefit in
>>>>     this case of explicitly saying that certain things are not
>>>>     defined.  Since the document does not define them, they are
>>>>     undefined in the document.
>>>>
>>>>      At 6:51 PM -0700 10/23/17, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>>>
>>>>       In other words,it is not clear to me how Section 5.4's
>>>>     discussion of scope improves or clarifies the situation in any
>>>>     way - and there is some possibility that it could cause problems.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      I believe comment #43 should be closed as no longer
>>>>     applicable, since the text against which it was generated has
>>>>     been deleted. (I've said this before, and I believe it remains
>>>>     the case.)
>>>>
>>>>      The comment from which #43 derives was made against a version
>>>>     of the document that had text explicitly discussing signed
>>>>     versus unsigned tags.  That text was subsequently deleted.
>>>>
>>>>      Here is the comment from which #43 derived:
>>>>
>>>>          5.2.  New 'humintlang-send' and 'humintlang-recv' attributes
>>>>
>>>>          Note that while signed language tags are used with a video
>>>>     stream
>>>>       to
>>>>          indicate sign language, a spoken language tag for a video
>>>>     stream
>>>>       in
>>>>          parallel with an audio stream with the same spoken
>>>>     language tag
>>>>          indicates a request for a supplemental video stream to see
>>>>     the
>>>>          speaker.
>>>>
>>>>       And there's a similar paragraph in 5.4:
>>>>
>>>>          A spoken language tag for a video stream in conjunction
>>>>     with an
>>>>
>>>>       audio
>>>>
>>>>          stream with the same language might indicate a request for
>>>>          supplemental video to see the speaker.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>       I think this mechanism needs to be described more exactly,
>>>>     and in
>>>>       particular, it should not depend on the UA understanding which
>>>>       language tags are spoken language tags.  It seems to me that a
>>>>       workable rule is that there is an audio stream and a video
>>>>     stream and
>>>>       they specify exactly the same language tag in their respective
>>>>       humintlang attributes.  In that case, it is a request for a
>>>>     spoken
>>>>       language with simultaneous video of the speaker, and those
>>>>     requests
>>>>       should be considered satisfied only if both streams can be
>>>>       established.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      The offending text that was in 5.2 and 5.4 was deleted.
>>>>
>>>>      The only remaining text that even mentions the issue is
>>>>     Section 5.4:
>>>>
>>>>         The behavior when specifying a non-signed language tag for
>>>>     a video
>>>>         media stream, or a signed language tag for an audio or text
>>>>     media
>>>>         stream, is not defined in this document.
>>>>
>>>>         The problem of knowing which language tags are signed and
>>>>     which are
>>>>         not is out of scope of this document.
>>>>
>>>>      So, let's delete Section 5.4 and be done with it.  Neither of
>>>>     the statements is necessary.
>>>>
>>>>      --
>>>>      Randall Gellens
>>>>      Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect; I speak for
>>>>     myself only
>>>>      -------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
>>>>      Make it right before you make it faster.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>     -- ----------------------------------------- Gunnar Hellström
>>     Omnitor gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
>>     <mailto:gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se> +46 708 204 288
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> -----------------------------------------
> Gunnar Hellström
> Omnitor
> gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
> +46 708 204 288
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SLIM mailing list
> SLIM@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Gunnar Hellström
Omnitor
gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
+46 708 204 288