[Speechsc] Confusuion with INTERPRET

Corby Anderson <corbya@microsoft.com> Sat, 22 August 2009 01:13 UTC

Return-Path: <corbya@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: speechsc@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: speechsc@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1293C3A69B5 for <speechsc@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VGeRr-a27y11 for <speechsc@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mailc.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 334F93A6838 for <speechsc@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.7.153) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:13:28 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.7.27]) by TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.7.153]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:13:22 -0700
From: Corby Anderson <corbya@microsoft.com>
To: "speechsc@ietf.org" <speechsc@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Confusuion with INTERPRET
Thread-Index: Acoixbz/oqwD7Tk/Sv6x0aOqfZ5kDw==
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:13:20 +0000
Message-ID: <EF149B22CD1213419BF4DFE038422CAC6D6C23@TK5EX14MBXC116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_EF149B22CD1213419BF4DFE038422CAC6D6C23TK5EX14MBXC116red_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:38:25 -0700
Subject: [Speechsc] Confusuion with INTERPRET
X-BeenThere: speechsc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Speech Services Control Working Group <speechsc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc>, <mailto:speechsc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/speechsc>
List-Post: <mailto:speechsc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:speechsc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc>, <mailto:speechsc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:15:30 -0000

Does section 9.20 INTERPRET need some clarification? 9.20 states that INTERPRETATION should return an INTERPRETATION-COMPLETE event (as described in 9.21), but the example in section 9.20 shows the following response:

   S->C:    MRCP/2.0 49 543267 200 COMPLETE
           Channel-Identifier:32AECB23433801@speechrecog
           Completion-Cause:000 success
           Content-Type:application/nlsml+xml
           Content-Length:...

That S->C format is for responses (5.3), not events (5.5).  Contrast this with the RECOGNITION-RESPONSE event to RECOGNIZE:

   S->C:MRCP/2.0 486 RECOGNITION-COMPLETE 543260 COMPLETE
   Channel-Identifier:32AECB23433801@speechrecog
   Completion-Cause:000 success
   Waveform-URI:<http://web.media.com/session123/audio.wav>;
                size=124535;duration=2340
   Content-Type:applicationt/x-nlsml
   Content-Length:...

Shouldn't the first line of the INTERPRETATION-COMPLETE event be something like the following?
   S->C:    MRCP/2.0 49 INTERPRETATION-COMPLETE 543267 COMPLETE

The only mention of INTERPRETATION-COMPLETE in the spec are
* table of contents
* 9.3 Recognizer events
* 9.21 where it's described
* 13.1.2 MRCPv2 methods and events
* 15 Normative definition

I found no usage examples for INTERPRETATION-COMPLETE; most notably not in 9.20



Also, section 9.9 states
   For the recognizer resource, RECOGNIZE is the only request that
   returns a request-state of IN-PROGRESS, meaning that recognition is
   in progress.

But the example in 9.20 for INTERPRET shows
   S->C:    MRCP/2.0 49 543266 200 IN-PROGRESS
           Channel-Identifier:32AECB23433801@speechrecog

Is the recognizer resource the resource that performs interpretation?  If so, then the text in 9.9 should be changed to say the following:
   For the recognizer resource, RECOGNIZE and INTERPRET are the only
   requests that return a request-state of IN-PROGRESS, meaning that
   recognition or interpretation is in progress.


Corby Anderson