Re: April 2010 CCXML Connection class dialogid? - ISSUE-672

Chris,

This issue is tracked as ISSUE-672. 

This may indeed be a leftover from the changes we made to fix the input/outputs cases. We will review on the next working group call and let you know what we think. 

	RJ

---
RJ Auburn
CTO, Voxeo Corporation
tel:+1-407-418-1800

On Apr 12, 2010, at 4:47 PM, Chris Davis wrote:

> Hello www-voice,
> 
> dialogid shows up as a property of the Connection class in assertion #287,
> but is not listed under http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/CR-ccxml-20100401/#connection.properties
> 
> The implementation report text for #287 (http://www.w3.org/Voice/2009/ccxml-irp/ )
> uses for justification the text:
>    "A Connection Object may have a dialogid property which
>    is the identifier of an associated dialog, if there is one currently using the connection."
> 
> and then links back to the table of connection properties in an attempt to justify the
> made-up rule.
> 
> We don't think this is a simple case of dialogid having been accidentally left off the
> Connection property table. A Connection can have more than one media input and/or Dialog
> associated with it at any one time. This is a purpose of the input and outputs properties
> of the Connection class. This alone would seem to defeat a single dialogid property.
> 
> For example, consider a call flow where there are 2 simultaneous recordings to different
> files from a single Connection.
> These could have been launched via <dialogstart mediadirection="'dialogreceive'"/>.
> In this case, which dialogid would be "associated" with the single Connection class?
> The single dialogid property would then be a bogus indication of what is associated with the Connection.
> 
> It seems that to have a dialogid property associated with the Connection class ignores
> the one to many relationship that CCXML says it supports. The problem extends beyond the
> test cases, as some examples in the CCXML Recommendation list *imply* dialogid as a property of the Connection
> class (7.1, 7.2.1.1, 10.4.2, maybe others).
> We recommend striking the examples from the Recommendation, and altering any test cases
> that imply a one-to-one relationship. In 10_2_2_A.txml, we changed:
>    <if cond="session.connections[OutboundID4].dialogid == DialogID">
> to be instead:
>   <if cond="session.connections[OutboundID4].input == DialogID &amp;&amp; session.connections[OutboundID4].outputs[0] == DialogID">
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris
> 
> -- 
> Chris Davis
> Interact Incorporated R&D
> 512-502-9969x117
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 02:50:33 UTC