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

["Wyss, Felix" <[e-mail]>]

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