EmotionML 1.0: Candidate Recommendation Disposition of Comments

This version:
17 December, 2012
Felix Burkhardt, DTAG


This document details the responses made by the Multimodal Interaction Working Group to issues raised during the Candidate Recommendation period (beginning 10 May 2012). Comments were provided via the www-multimodal-request@w3.org (archive) mailing list.


This document of the W3C's Multimodal Interaction Working Group describes the disposition of comments as of 20 November, 2012 on the Candidate Recommendation of EmotionML (Emotion Markup Language) Version 1.0. It may be updated, replaced or rendered obsolete by other W3C documents at any time.

For background on this work, please see the Multimodal Interaction Activity Statement.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

This document describes the disposition of comments in relation to Emotion Markup Language (EmotionML) Version 1.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-emotionml-20120510/). The goal is to allow the readers to understand the background behind the modifications made to the specification. In the meantime it provides an useful check point for the people who submitted comments to evaluate the resolutions applied by the W3C's Multimodal Interaction Working Group.
In this document each issue is described by the name of the commentator, a description of the issue, and either the resolution or the reason that the issue was not resolved.

This document provides the analysis of the issues that were submitted and resolved as part of the Candidate Recommendation period. All of these comments were received as comments accompanying Implementation Reports.

2. Summary

ItemCommentatorNatureResolutionCommenter's acceptance
Fobe-2Gerhard Fobe (2012-08-18)Clarification / Typo / EditorialAcceptedAccepted
Fobe-1Gerhard Fobe (2012-08-05)Clarification / Typo / EditorialAcceptedAccepted
Nutter-1Josie Nutter (2012-07-02)Clarification / Typo / EditorialAcceptedAccepted

2.1 Clarifications, Typographical, and Other Editorial

Issue Fobe-2

From Gerhard Fobe (2012-08-18):

Hello, I found some lack of clarity in context of the freq attribute of the trace element. In EmotionML Candidate Recommendation of 10 May 2012 you can read following sentence: 'The value of this attribute MUST be a positive floating point number followed by optional whitespace followed by "Hz".' All in all I interpret here that I have to use e.g. "42.0 Hz". 1. Interpretation of whitespace ------------------------------- In my opinion it is not clear what whitespace means in detail. My first interpretation was that only one whitespace character, e.g. space or tab, is allowed. But in the emotionml-fragments.xsd you test of many whitespace characters. Perhaps it will be better to clarify it more? What is right? 2. Different design of floating points -------------------------------------- It's clear that floating points like 42 or 42.0 are allowed, but what is with other designs of positive floating point numbers such as +1234.456 or +1.2344e56 ? Should this be allowed too? In my opinion in the moment it is, but it makes it needless complicate. 3. Wrong RegEx in emotionml-fragments.xsd ----------------------------------------- In the XSD this area is validated via the pattern \d+(\.\d*)?\s*Hz In my opinion this is wrong, because of \d* you can set as many digits you want. "42." will be a valid value too but I think this is not a valid floating point number. In the XSD I prefer the RegEx \d+(\.\d+)?\s?Hz

Resolution: Accepted

We accept your suggestions in all three issues and will change the spec accordingly.

Email Trail:

Issue Fobe-1

From Gerhard Fobe (2012-08-05):

I note an inconsistence using namespace prefixes in examples of EmotionML. In example of section 2.1.1 (<emotionml>) there is em: as prefix for EmotionML. In the example in section 5.2.2 (SSML) and in Appendix A (XML Schema) emo: is used as prefix. What is the recommended prefix? I think emo: is the most intuitive choise.

Resolution: Accepted

The MMI Working Group has discussed your point and agrees with you that the prefix should be kept consistent in the spec and that "emo" is a good choice, so we'll change the spec accordingly.

Email Trail:

Issue Nutter-1

From Josie Nutter (2012-07-02):

In section 3.1.4 ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-emotionml-20100729/#s3.1.4 ), I believe the term listed as "agnostic" was supposed to be "agonistic"?

Resolution: Accepted

The typo will be corrected in the next version.

Email Trail:

2.2 Technical Errors


2.3 Requests for Change to Existing Features


2.4 New Feature Requests