Re: [Speechsc] Problem with draft-6 RECOGNIZEcommandandtest/uri-listcontent type

["David R. Oran" <[e-mail]>]

I'm cool with this too. Let's give a bit more time to see if anyone  
violently objects. Don't wait to supply text though!

On Jun 15, 2005, at 2:53 PM, Shanmugham, Saravanan wrote:

> I am fine with the idea.
> Would you be able to propose a content-type registration section for
> this content-type.
> We could add it to the current list of registrations and retire the
> one-of header.
>
> Sarvi
>
>      -----Original Message-----
>      From: Wyss, Felix [mailto:[e-mail]]
>      Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 11:37 AM
>      To: Dave Burke; Shanmugham, Saravanan; David R. Oran
>      Cc: [e-mail]; Bennett, Patrick
>      Subject: RE: [Speechsc] Problem with draft-6
>      RECOGNIZEcommandandtest/uri-listcontent type
>
>      I think that's a terrible abuse of the MIME types!  The
>      weight parameter controls the weight with which the
>      grammar is considered in a particular recognition
>      operation.  That has *absolutely nothing* to do with the
>      type of the grammar.  Using a MIME-type parameter for this
>      would be akin to controlling the text size of an HTML page
>      through its MIME type.
>
>      I personally don't really have a problem with using an
>      inline "one-of"
>      grammar.  However, if that's considered too much hassle
>      for the clients, what about introducing a content type
>      text/grammar-refs for the RECOGNIZE command?  Each line of
>      the body would be a URI enclosed in angle brackets,
>      followed by a colon and a list of parameters.  For
>      example:
>
>      Channel-Identifier: 123456789012345@speechrecog
>      N-Best-List-Length: 3
>      Content-Type: text/grammar-refs
>      Content-Length: xxx
>
>      <http://myserver/grammars/form1.gram>
>      <http://myserver/grammars/form2.gram>:weight=0.85
>      <http://myserver/grammars/universals.gram>:weight=0.75
>
>
>      Felix
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail]
>>
>      [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>
>> Behalf Of Dave Burke
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 04:05
>> To: Shanmugham, Saravanan; David R. Oran
>> Cc: [e-mail]; Bennett, Patrick
>> Subject: Re: [Speechsc] Problem with draft-6
>>
>      RECOGNIZEcommandandtest/uri-
>
>> listcontent type
>>
>> I did some quick research into extending MIME headers
>>
>      and noted the
>
>> following:
>>     - RFC2045 allows new Content-* extensions
>>     - No IANA considerations apply
>>     - Seems like new headers introduced in the past have
>>
>      had their own
>      RFC
>
>> (e.g.  RFC2912 and RFC3803).
>>
>> We would be defining a new MIME header inside the MRCP
>>
>      specification...
>
>>
>> A slicker approach could be to request to the author of
>>
>      the I-D that
>
>> defines the application/srgs+xml media type
>>
>>
>      (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-froumentin-voice
>      -mediatypes-
>
>> 02.txt)
>> to add an optional parameter called 'weight' so we could
>>
>      use something
>
>> like:
>>
>>     Content-Type: application/srgs+xml;weight=0.75
>>
>> The values could take on the VoiceXML definition, which
>>
>      I believe has
>      the
>
>> right amount of generality.
>>
>> I defer to more experienced IETFeers on whether either of these
>>
>      approaches
>
>> appear tenable.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Shanmugham, Saravanan" <[e-mail]>
>> To: "Dave Burke" <[e-mail]>; "David R. Oran"
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: <[e-mail]>; "Bennett, Patrick"
>>
>      <[e-mail]>
>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 8:24 PM
>> Subject: RE: [Speechsc] Problem with draft-6 RECOGNIZE
>> commandandtest/uri-listcontent type
>>
>>
>> I am fine with Option iii, but the we would be trying to
>>
>      extend MIME
>
>> headers which I am not sure if its extenisble or what
>>
>      the procedure to
>
>> define new MIME-headers are. Could find any good examples.
>>
>> So I chose the next best thing which was to use a
>>
>      <One-of> rule id
>
>> approach.
>>
>> Sarvi
>>
>>      -----Original Message-----
>>      From: [e-mail]
>>      [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Dave Burke
>>      Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 9:41 AM
>>      To: David R. Oran
>>      Cc: [e-mail]; Bennett, Patrick
>>      Subject: Re: [Speechsc] Problem with draft-6 RECOGNIZE
>>      commandandtest/uri-listcontent type
>>
>>      To be clear, I think there are two issues:
>>      A. How to word the precedence when input matches more than
>>      one active grammar?
>>      B. How to specify a weight for a complete grammar? (see
>>      http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/speechsc/current/msg0
>>      1023.html)
>>
>>      For A, how about appending the sentence in 1. and 2. so
>>      that we get:
>>
>>      ...the order of inclusion controls the corresponding
>>      precedence for the grammars during recognition should the
>>      input match more than one active grammar.
>>
>>      For B, which point 3 addresses, there are three options
>>
>      discussed:
>
>>      (i) Use the One-Of-Rule-Id-URI mechanism below
>>      (ii) Add an informative note that a <one-of> grammar can
>>      be used to apply weights to grammars (One-Of-Rule-Id-URI
>>      is unnecessary )
>>      (iii) Go with Jeff's idea of adding a new header to
>>
>      a MIME part
>
>>      (http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/speechsc/current/msg
>>      01102.html) Small refinement though, the header should be
>>      called Content-Grammar-Weight to fit RFC2045's extension
>>
>      mechanism
>
>>
>>      My preference is for (iii) over (ii) because if my MRCP
>>      client runs VoiceXML then I'm going to have to handle
>>      cases when <grammar> has a weight attribute and build up a
>>      <one-of> grammar. This is just annoying complexity for the
>>
>      client.
>
>>
>>      Dave
>>
>>
>>      ----- Original Message -----
>>      From: "David R. Oran" <[e-mail]>
>>      To: "Dave Burke" <[e-mail]>
>>      Cc: <[e-mail]>; "Bennett, Patrick"
>>      <[e-mail]>
>>      Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 5:02 PM
>>      Subject: Re: [Speechsc] Problem with draft-6 RECOGNIZE
>>      command andtest/uri-listcontent type
>>
>>
>>      I agree with Dave, but I also believe the current text is
>>      quite torturous and prone to misinterpretation. I had held
>>      off screwing around with it because of my shaky
>>      understanding of the "one-of-rule- id" stuff but now that
>>      I think I can get it right I've taken a whack at it.
>>
>>      This is what the in-progress version of the spec says:
>>
>>      The RECOGNIZE request uses the message body to specify the
>>      grammars applicable to the request. The active grammar(s)
>>      for the request can be specified in one of 3 ways.
>>
>>      1. The grammer may be placed directly in the message body
>>      using MIME content. If more than one grammar is included
>>      in the body, the order of inclusion controls the
>>      corresponding precedence for the grammars during
>>
>      recognition.
>
>>      2. The body may contain a list of grammar URIs specified
>>      in a mime- content of type text/uri-list. The order of the
>>      URIs determines the corrensponding precedence for the
>>      grammars during recognition.
>>      3. The active grammar among a set of grammars can
>>      specified using a One-Of-Rule-Id-URI header in the
>>      message. This header (see Section
>>      9.4.24 (One-Of-Rule-Id-URI)) refers to a specific <one-of>
>>      rule-id contained in the grammar (or grammars) specified
>>      in the body of the message.
>>
>>      Are further adjustments needed?
>>
>>
>>      On Jun 14, 2005, at 11:25 AM, Dave Burke wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The precedence is not related to weighting. The text
>>>
>>      here covers  the
>>
>>> case if you had two grammars say gram1.grxml and
>>>
>>      gram2.grxml  both of
>>
>>> which recognise the token "speech" but return a
>>>
>>      different  semantic
>>
>>> interpretation. If gram2.grxml follows gram1.grxml in
>>>
>>      the  uri-list
>>
>>> then it is gram1.grxml that is matched and it is
>>>
>      gram1.grxml's
>
>>> semantic interpretation result that is returned
>>>
>      in  the NLSML.
>
>>>
>>> This is also required for VoiceXML 2.x behaviour
>>>
>      (see http://
>
>>> www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-voicexml20-20040316/#dml3.1.4).
>>>
>>> Dave
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Bennett, Patrick
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 4:09 PM
>>> Subject: [Speechsc] Problem with draft-6 RECOGNIZE
>>>
>>      command and test/
>>
>>> uri-listcontent type
>>>
>>> According to the latest draft on page 89:
>>>
>>>
>>>    ...The RECOGNIZE method MUST carry the
>>>
>      grammars that need to
>
>> be
>>
>>>
>>>    activated for that RECOGNIZE method, in its
>>>
>      message body.
>      The
>
>>>
>>>    grammars that need to be activated can be specified
>>>
>>      in one of 3
>>
>>>
>>>    ways. The grammar content could be specified as a
>>>
>>      mime-content in
>>
>>>
>>>    the message body. It could be a simple list of
>>>
>      grammar URIs
>
>>>
>>>    specified in a mime-content of type text/uri-list, in
>>>
>>      which case
>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>    order of the URI refer to the precedence order of the
>>>
>      grammars
>
>>>
>>>    during the recognize. ...
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem here is the statement "in which case the
>>>
>>      order of the  URI
>>
>>> refer to the precedence order of the   grammars during
>>>
>>      the  recognize."
>>
>>>
>>> Well, what is the EXACT precedence?  Shouldn't each of
>>>
>>      the grammars
>>
>>> be considered as equally weighted alternatives?
>>>
>>      Ideally, all must  be
>>
>>> weighted equally unless a specific weight parameter was
>>>
>>      specified
>>
>>> with each URI.
>>>
>>> As currently specified, this part of the specification
>>>
>>      is basically
>>
>>> worthless.  No MRCP client would ever send multiple URIs
>>>
>>      to an MRCP
>>
>>> server via a uri-list since the weighting applied to
>>>
>>      each grammar  is
>>
>>> completely undefined.
>>>
>>> This really needs to be corrected.
>>>
>>>
>>> Patrick Bennett
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speechsc mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Speechsc mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc
>>>
>>>
>>
>>      _______________________________________________
>>      Speechsc mailing list
>>      [e-mail]
>>      https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc
>>
>>
>>      _______________________________________________
>>      Speechsc mailing list
>>      [e-mail]
>>      https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speechsc mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc
>>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Speechsc mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc