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

Gunnar Hellström <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se> Tue, 21 November 2017 08:00 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 9D36412922E for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 00:00:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 n5UYUy58HDRr for <slim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 00:00:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bin-vsp-out-02.atm.binero.net (bin-mail-out-05.binero.net [195.74.38.228]) (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 68F1D1292D3 for <slim@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 00:00:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Halon-ID: 0509e9cc-ce92-11e7-96ae-005056917f90
Authorized-sender: gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se
Received: from [192.168.2.136] (unknown [77.53.37.96]) by bin-vsp-out-02.atm.binero.net (Halon) with ESMTPSA id 0509e9cc-ce92-11e7-96ae-005056917f90; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 09:00:21 +0100 (CET)
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> <55f2b336-3f14-f49a-ec78-f00b0373db00@omnitor.se> <bc5b7aa5-7c6a-5096-47d0-01e5ee079e93@omnitor.se> <CAOW+2duUPsTY=Ygzwfu0eOYbHaBAwMqm+oxA6AdMXinxTMNM1A@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Gunnar_Hellstr=c3=b6m?= <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
Message-ID: <165d2c07-19ca-f2b1-2aac-3aac842b97e9@omnitor.se>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 09:00:27 +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: <CAOW+2duUPsTY=Ygzwfu0eOYbHaBAwMqm+oxA6AdMXinxTMNM1A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------EB7419766D4AF2AC0C9A455B"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/slim/zGu38uyaw8RTNUc_Q6irhKZU-Fk>
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: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:00:43 -0000

Den 2017-11-20 kl. 23:16, skrev Bernard Aboba:
> Can we include text from Brian's suggestion? For example:
>
> "If a sign language is signaled in a video stream, it is interpreted 
> as an indication that sign language will appear in the video. 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 spoken/written language tag can be identified by not having 
> any such "sgn" prefix. This document does not define any other use for 
> language tags in video media (such as how to indicate a desire for 
> visible captions).
>
> This document does not define the use of sign language tags in text or 
> audio media. If a spoken/written language tag is included in text 
> media, it indicates a desire for written language. If a spoken/written 
> language tag is included in audio media, it is interpreted as an 
> indication that spoken language is desired.  Using the "lip sync" 
> grouping mechanism defined in [RFC5888], it is possible to indicate 
> the desire to synchronize audio and video so as to support lip reading.
>
> Use of language tags may appear in other media, such as "message" and 
> "application". Such use may be supported by further work or 
> application specific agreement."
<GH>Quite good. I see four small issues.
1: "WILL appear" is not right in the first sentence. The indication may 
be just one of a set of indicated languages.
2: The first paragraph says that we do not define other use of language 
tags in video than for sign language, but the second paragraph defines 
how to use tags for spoken language in video.
3: I prefer to start with the three normal clearly supported cases.
4: The indications sometimes indicate desire, sometimes capability. 
Therefore the word "desire" is not suitable in the explanations.
5: In the LC review, we had some resistance against using the term 
"spoken/written language tag". It appears again in the proposal. I do 
not understand the resistance and I do not know how strict it was, but 
we need to know if it is ok to use that term.  (I do not change that for 
now in the proposal below.)


A proposal trying to act on issues 1-4 plus other minor rewording:
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.4 Media, Language and Modality indications
A spoken/written language tag included in a text media description is an 
indication for written language. A spoken/written language tag included 
in an audio media description is an indication for spoken language. A 
sign language tag included in a video media description is an indication 
for sign language in the video stream.

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 spoken/written language tag can be identified by not having any 
such "sgn" prefix.

This document does not define the use of sign language tags in text or 
audio media.  By including a language tag for spoken language in a video 
description and using the "lip sync" grouping mechanism defined in 
[RFC5888] it is possible to indicate synchronized audio and video so as 
to support lip reading. Other use of spoken/written language tags in a 
video description (such as for video embedded text captions) is not 
defined in this document.

Use of 'hlang' attributes may appear in other media descriptions, such 
as "message" and "application" supported by further work or application 
specific agreements.

------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Gunnar Hellström 
> <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se <mailto:gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>> wrote:
>
>     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 <mailto:gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
>>     +46 708 204 288
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     SLIM mailing list
>>     SLIM@ietf.org <mailto:SLIM@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim
>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim>
>
>     -- 
>     -----------------------------------------
>     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