See also: IRC log
<Ian> hi mark, bjoern
<Bjoern> hi ian, marc
<marc> hi there!
<marc> Hi Christian and Paolo, could you please join on the phone?
<paolo> Scribe: Paolo Baggia
<paolo> ScribeNick: paolo
<Ian> no problem
marc: introduction
... You know the charter and the result of last year
... You know the requirements
<Ian> try www.ircatwork.com
<Ian> i am using it now
<Ian> i had the same problem
<Ian> go to advanced, set the port number to 6665
<Ian> doh!
Marc: back to agenda point
1
... Paolo suggested to put priority and focus on simple
reqs
... how we do that?
... second point is to have a first draft, then a second
one
... In the meantime to discuss with VBWG (Voice Browser)
<Bjoern> agrees.
marc: and MMIWG (Multimodal Interaction)
<marc> next item
Cathrine: fine
<marc> next item
marc: How do we simplify?
... Laurence Devillers is interested in it.
<Bjoern> volunteers for "who"
next item
<Bjoern> let's make use case task forces?
Cathrine: simplify with respect of what?
marc: relevance
Bjoern: on use cases
Ian: maybe we can go on the requirement and set a value of 1, 2 or 3
marc: on the use cases, I fear we will re-open the discussion of last year
<Bjoern> likes 1,2,3 + no opinion...
<Ian> must have (1), could have (2), optional (3)
Hannes: I introduced difficult levels during the compilation of use cases
<Ian> I found the wiki very difficult to figure out.. and amend
Hannes: In theory there was the
idea of the people to comment on it.
... i could add a new table in the Wiki for the comments.
<Ian> Can we all mute our phones please (61#)
<Ian> ok
marc: I like to go one by one and assign values
Bioern: add value for "no opinion"
<Ian> must have (1), could have (2), no opinion (3)
Paolo: There is already a scale for priority of requirements
marc: Paolo would you circulate it?
paolo: yes
ACTION to Paolo circulate priority scale
<scribe> ACTION: Paolo to circulate priority scale [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/19-emotion-minutes.html#action01]
marc: Hannes would you circulate a summary from the Wiki document
Hannes: ok
<Ian> w3 previous spec ranking example -> http://www.w3.org/TR/voice-dialog-reqs/
<scribe> ACTION: Hannes to circulate short summary from Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/19-emotion-minutes.html#action02]
<Ian> must have, should have, nice to have
<Ian> ok
<Bjoern> ok
<marc> Suggest to first set up a questionnaire,
<marc> ... getting people's opinions of what is high or low priorities
<marc> ... and then in the next phone meeting, decide how we proceed
next item
<Bjoern> likes xml...
marc: This is the most
interesting part, but difficult
... we don't know all the options.
... I'll go for XML, other options are RDF or others
... other decision is flat or deep structure
<Bjoern> likes deep xml
marc: opinion
<Ian> OWL -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Ontology_Language
<Ian> RDF -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_Framework
Paolo: People should propose strenght or weaknesses
Ian: depens on the application
marc: We should consider different applications
Ian: All of the can be used, but ...
<Ian> quiet
Bill: I worked with OWL, I love
your reqs document, I don't know very much of XML
... There are many preexistent onthologies to express
times
... There is a lot of predefined knowledge
marc: I know it very little. I cannot express an opinion.
<Ian> we need to "bone up" quickly
<Ian> define the parameters
Bill: I could dig around on
pre-existing examples or write one.
... It stands on top of RDF and XML.
Ian: about parameters, I think
these languages good to be readable
... The parameters is readability, we can set general
parameters
... then look to the parameters and make the more fitting
marc: We could first look to the properties of these languages
Hannes: I'd like to understand
what we are talking about
... we have to distinguish syntactic and semantic aspects
marc: Human will write by hand, e.g XML while OWL is for automatic reasoning
Ian: another is weight for protocols
paolo: another parameter is to be
easy to integrate in another language
... SSML for TTS and VoiceXML for ASR
Ian: for that is better XML
<marc> EARL
<Ian> start with simple XML and expand out as necessary
<Ian> EARL is great actually
marc: we could start from EARL
<Ian> ok, we can go home now... :)
<marc> http://emotion-research.net/earl
<Bjoern> likes starting with EARL on an xml basis and only expand if necessary...
<marc> Design principle for EARL was: "Simple cases should look simple"
<Bjoern> scribe: Bjoern Schuller
<Ian> i think in the next week or so we should all become basically familiar with the pros and cons of rdf/xml/owl
<Bjoern> scribenick: bjoern
<Ian> i like to start with EARL
<Ian> its easier to start from something existing then adapt
marc: not needed to push it through, but just start based on EARL/XML
<Ian> very quiet bill
<paolo> Scribenick: paolo
<Ian> nice
Bill: other people can do XML or
EARL
... then compare
<Ian> can anyone else do rdf?
marc: fine, can you pick some part
<Ian> someone with experience
<scribe> ACTION: Bill to select part of requirement and to do OWL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/19-emotion-minutes.html#action03]
<marc> Do we have anyone with experience in RDF?
<Bjoern> no...
<Ian> i can try
<Ian> yes... !
<scribe> ACTION: Ian to do the proposal in RDF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/19-emotion-minutes.html#action04]
<Ian> right
<Ian> do the same portion
<mlamolle> i can try also
<Ian> Bill, I will ask your advice too
<mlamolle> with another portion
<mlamolle> ok
<mlamolle> rdf or owl
<Ian> what about the same portion in XML?
<Bjoern> could do in xml
<mlamolle> yes
<mlamolle> we start with EARL
marc: the easiest is that you (Bill, Ian, Myriam) to communicate offline.
<Ian> ok
<mlamolle> with flat or deep structure
<mlamolle> like the fisrt proposition
<mlamolle> ok
<scribe> ACTION: Bjoern to do it in XML [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/19-emotion-minutes.html#action05]
marc: is it flat or deep?
Bjoern: probably flat
<mlamolle> what do you want...
<Ian> deep
<mlamolle> ok
<Bjoern> does flat xml structure example.
<mlamolle> yes
<scribe> ACTION: Myriam in XML with deep structure [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/19-emotion-minutes.html#action06]
<Ian> do we understand what "deep" and "flat" means?
<Bjoern> yes.
<Ian> ok
<mlamolle> flat structure impliees the use of XML attributes
<Ian> ok, thats what i thought, thanks
<mlamolle> and deep structure implies simple element or complex element...
<Bjoern> until 10.01.2008
marc: deadline should be longer,
not realisticc
... next call will be Wednesday very early.
<Ian> any day is ok for me
marc: week Jan 28?
<Ian> ok
ok
<mlamolle> ok
<Bjoern> ok
<mlamolle> yes
<Ian> ok
marc: work done for the
meeting.
... I'll do the poll for the day
next item
marc: thanks to all the participants
<Ian> thank you, good to get back to it
<mlamolle> happy christmas
marc: best wishes and happy new year
<Ian> bye
<mlamolle> bye
bye
<Bjoern> bye
<jarrold> bye
<Kostas> bye
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/oppinion/opinion/ Found Scribe: Paolo Baggia Found ScribeNick: paolo Found Scribe: Bjoern Schuller Found ScribeNick: bjoern Found ScribeNick: paolo Scribes: Paolo Baggia, Bjoern Schuller ScribeNicks: paolo, bjoern Default Present: Marc, +49.892.aaaa, Björn, Ian_Wilson, +95177aabb, Catherine, +1.302.107.aacc, Kostas, +1.512.567.aadd, +49.381.402.aaee, Bill, Christian, +43.153.2aaff, Hannes, Paolo_Baggia, Enrico_Zovato, +4870aagg, Myriam Present: Marc +49.892.aaaa Björn Ian_Wilson +95177aabb Catherine +1.302.107.aacc Kostas +1.512.567.aadd +49.381.402.aaee Bill Christian +43.153.2aaff Hannes Paolo_Baggia Enrico_Zovato +4870aagg Myriam Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-emotion/2007Dec/0004.html Got date from IRC log name: 19 Dec 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/12/19-emotion-minutes.html People with action items: bill bjoern hannes ian myriam paolo[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]