W3C

EMMA 1.0: Candidate Recommendation Disposition of Comments

This version:
10 December, 2008
Editor(s):
Deborah Dahl, W3C Invited Expert

Abstract

This document details the responses made by the Multimodal Interaction Working Group to issues raised during the Candidate Recommendation period (beginning 12 December 2007). Comments were provided via the www-multimodal-request@w3.org (archive) mailing list.

Status

This document of the W3C's Multimodal Interaction Working Group describes the disposition of comments as of 10 December, 2008 on the Candidate Recommendation of Extensible Multimodal Annotation (EMMA) 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 Extensible Multimodal Annotation (EMMA) Version 1.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/emma/). 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
Loquendo-1Paolo Baggia (2008-04-09)Change to Existing FeatureRejectedAccepted
Loquendo-2Paolo Baggia (2008-04-09)Technical ErrorAcceptedAccepted
Loquendo-3Paolo Baggia (2008-04-09)Clarification / Typo / Editorial RejectedAccepted
Conversational-Technologies-1Deborah Dahl (2008-04-14)Clarification / Typo / Editorial DeferredAccepted
Conversational-Technologies-2Deborah Dahl (2008-09-03)Technical ErrorAcceptedAccepted
ATT-1Michael Johnston (2008-08-25)Clarification / Typo / Editorial AcceptedAccepted
ATT-2Michael Johnston (2008-08-25)Technical ErrorAcceptedAccepted
ATT-3Michael Johnston (2008-08-25)Technical ErrorAcceptedAccepted
ATT-4Michael Johnston (2008-08-25)Technical ErrorAcceptedAccepted

2.1 Clarifications, Typographical, and Other Editorial

Issue Loquendo-3

From Paolo Baggia (2008-04-09):

TA #2100 and #2101 : Note that it is very hard to have absolute times in a client- server ASR implementation.

Resolution: Rejected

We recognize this and note that the spec includes the following language in Section 4.2.10.2: "Timestamps of inputs collected by different devices will be subject to variation if the times maintained by the devices are not synchronized. This concern is outside of the scope of the EMMA specification."

Email Trail:

Issue Conversational-Technologies-1

From Deborah Dahl (2008-04-14):

Recommend clarifying the spec on semantics of start and end times for text input.

Resolution: Deferred

We agree that this should be clarified but would like to defer this to a later version of EMMA. There are a number of issues that need to be considered, for example, whether there is a difference between the semantics of timing for typed text, cut and paste text, or text input from a file.

Email Trail:

Issue ATT-1

From Michael Johnston (2008-08-25):

Suggest use of emma:literal for raw recognition results as well as for literal semantic results from language understanding.

Resolution: Accepted

We agree that this should be clarified but note that the specification as it currently stands does in fact allow for the use of emma:literal for raw recognition results. We have clarified this in the new draft of the specification.

Email Trail:

2.2 Technical Errors

Issue Loquendo-2

From Paolo Baggia (2008-04-09):

TA #1501 : There is no evidence in EMMA 1.0 CR of this statement. Loquendo asks to remove this Test Assertion from EMMA IR.

Resolution: Accepted

We agree and have removed this test assertion.

Email Trail:

Issue Conversational-Technologies-2

From Deborah Dahl (2008-09-03):

(Regarding TA 801) This test assertion refers to a configuration that is not allowed by the spec. It should be removed.

Resolution: Accepted

We agree and have removed this test assertion.

Email Trail:

Issue ATT-2

From Michael Johnston (2008-08-25):

Request removal of test 1501 since the use of emma:uninterpreted to indicate below threshold input is not described in the EMMA specification.

Resolution: Accepted

We agree and have removed this test assertion.

Email Trail:

Issue ATT-3

From Michael Johnston (2008-08-25):

Request removal of tests 902 and 903 since these constraints on the resource attribute on emma:derived-from are not described in the EMMA specification.

Resolution: Accepted

We agree and have removed these test assertions.

Email Trail:

Issue ATT-4

From Michael Johnston (2008-08-25):

Request removal of test assertion 801 for inline emma:model since this test contradicts the EMMA schema, in which emma:model can only be a child of emma:emma.

Resolution: Accepted

We agree and have removed this test assertion.

Email Trail:

2.3 Requests for Change to Existing Features

Issue Loquendo-1

From Paolo Baggia (2008-04-09):

TA #606 : Unable to create an epsilon transition emma:arc without content. Should this be optional?

Resolution: Rejected

The test assertion only applies if the implementation creates an epsilon transition, so it can remain required for those implementations.

Email Trail:

2.4 New Feature Requests

None.