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

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

<chair hat>
I sent a query to Max to see if he was amenable to adding a weight  
parameter to the srgs mime registration. I'll let the WG know the  
status as soon as I hear back.
</chair hat>

Dave.

On Jun 15, 2005, at 10:30 AM, Shanmugham, Saravanan wrote:

>
>
>      -----Original Message-----
>      From: Dave Burke [mailto:[e-mail]]
>      Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 2:05 AM
>      To: Shanmugham, Saravanan; David R. Oran
>      Cc: [e-mail]; Bennett, Patrick
>      Subject: Re: [Speechsc] Problem with draft-6 RECOGNIZE
>      commandandtest/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 like this idea.
>
> Sarvi
>
>      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