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

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Mon, 20 November 2017 20:04 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 4C8BA12EA95 for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:04:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 t87RBRy66Q64 for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:04:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alum-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu (alum-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu [18.7.68.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F2B8129BCC for <slim@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:04:48 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 12074414-0d3ff70000006ddf-1a-5a13355d7db0
Received: from outgoing-alum.mit.edu (OUTGOING-ALUM.MIT.EDU [18.7.68.33]) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by alum-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 29.8C.28127.D55331A5; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:04:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from PaulKyzivatsMBP.localdomain (c-24-62-227-142.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.62.227.142]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as pkyzivat@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by outgoing-alum.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id vAKK4iaK006420 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:04:45 -0500
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Cc: slim@ietf.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> <6812d89a-ba10-0947-5320-07374b8c071d@comcast.net> <CAOW+2dtodRVOyGg_Q83TCPXwL3jBccA-hpBhYfrPCAUjSm5zkQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <48a8764f-ebf3-0e62-eb1a-390347d41263@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:04:44 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2dtodRVOyGg_Q83TCPXwL3jBccA-hpBhYfrPCAUjSm5zkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprDKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixO6iqBtvKhxlMNHeYsO+/8wWMz90sjkw eeycdZfdY8mSn0wBTFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGZ9/PWUq2ClecXXtSeYGxneCXYycHBICJhIT 189k7mLk4hAS2MEkcXPXE3YI5yGTxJo9y1lBqoQFgiQuTn3GBmKLCGhL9H3bxwRiMwsISuzp vAdmCwncY5Z4MoEfxGYT0JKYc+g/C4jNK2AvMelLH1gvi4CqRPPR08wgtqhAmsSdGQ+ZIGoE JU7OfAJWzykQKLFv1Xl2iPlmEvM2P2SGsMUlbj2ZD7VXXqJ562zmCYwCs5C0z0LSMgtJyywk LQsYWVYxyiXmlObq5iZm5hSnJusWJyfm5aUW6Vro5WaW6KWmlG5ihASwyA7GIyflDjEKcDAq 8fB+4BGKEmJNLCuuzD3EKMnBpCTKu+o3UIgvKT+lMiOxOCO+qDQntfgQowQHs5IIr1oUUI43 JbGyKrUoHyYlzcGiJM77bbG6n5BAemJJanZqakFqEUxWhoNDSYL3ibFwlJBgUWp6akVaZk4J QpqJgxNkOA/Q8OsgNbzFBYm5xZnpEPlTjK4cPT03/jBxPLpxF0hu+P4ASD6b+bqBmWPe8W9N zEIsefl5qVLivK+MgJoFQJozSvPg5sMS1StGcaB3hXnfg6zgASY5uA2vgJYzAS13ucAPsrwk ESEl1cDY9KYpzTh4tfFWy7+rdZodsmNlV7qKHuG6f87pwuwrs+SSBIofe7sz117WX5OzxXyf qltlhP3NTMGlzuWudrOapv7/cuWxqcbC9sNfb/+7yVi0sOzlE1/rdR5rsiyOzenh8Vz7Pifp wWr7M3zpv3geH57CtqRhwaaLGSm+S9Sy5L9xnTkndaBYiaU4I9FQi7moOBEAhrHm4S8DAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/slim/sAbGtACeWIPa13i3ryuEFmohNe0>
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 20:04:50 -0000

On 11/20/17 2:10 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Paul said:
> 
> "ISTM the real problem is with language tags in video media. These could 
> indicate that the lip motions of people in the video reflect speakers of 
> the tagged language. Or they could indicate written text in the 
> specified language is embedded in the video. (Could be closed caption 
> text or just signage.) Or (in the case of signed language tags) it could 
> indicate use of sign language in the video.
> 
> But in the end, if this is declarative about what is being sent then it 
> isn't clear whether it is important. If it is an indication of what is 
> being requested, then it is more important."
> 
> [BA] Yes, that is the core of the problem.  As has been noted earlier, 
> the modality isn't indicated explicitly. I'm not sure whether we have 
> enough experience to know whether this represents an important deficit.  
> But we could indicate that the problem potentially exists and that 
> further work might be needed.

Of these, I think we can declare the lip sync "modality" to be a 
non-issue. There is already a way to signal lip sync in SDP. If that is 
used, then the language tag on the audio can be inferred to apply as 
well to the linked video. That wouldn't cover a case where you can see 
moving lips but there is no corresponding audio, but that doesn't seem 
like a very important case to address.

I'd be happy to just leave it marked as for future work.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Paul Kyzivat <paul.kyzivat@comcast.net 
> <mailto:paul.kyzivat@comcast.net>> wrote:
> 
>     On 11/20/17 1:41 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> 
>         [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".
> 
> 
>     ISTM the real problem is with language tags in video media. These
>     could indicate that the lip motions of people in the video reflect
>     speakers of the tagged language. Or they could indicate written text
>     in the specified language is embedded in the video. (Could be closed
>     caption text or just signage.) Or (in the case of signed language
>     tags) it could indicate use of sign language in the video.
> 
>     But in the end, if this is declarative about what is being sent then
>     it isn't clear whether it is important. If it is an indication of
>     what is being requested, then it is more important.
> 
>              Thanks,
>              Paul
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     SLIM mailing list
>     SLIM@ietf.org <mailto:SLIM@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim>
> 
>