Subject: [Speechsc] NLSML comments

From: "Reifenrath, Klaus" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:15:09 -0500

Hi Sarvi!

Here are some review comments on the NLSML specification in MRCPv2 draft
-05. The first 5 comment are just about inconsistencies in the spec.

1. Example on page 73.
What is the meaning of the (undeclared) namespace prefix "myApp"?
        <?xml version="1.0"?> 
        <result grammar="http://theYesNoGrammar"> 
            <interpretation> 
                <instance> 
                    <myApp:yes_no> 
                        <response>yes</response> 
                    </myApp:yes_no> 
                </instance> 
                <input>ok</input> 
            </interpretation> 
        </result> 

2. I think the examples given in the text should be checked against the
Schema. They contain several minor mistakes, e.g. on page 79, the enclosing
double quotes for the confidence value are missing, and in the end tag of
the instance element the "/" is missing. 
    <instance name="nameAddress"> 
      <nameAddress> 
          <street confidence=75>123 Maple Street</street> 
          <city>Mill Valley</city> 
          <state>CA</state> 
          <zip>90952</zip> 
      </nameAddress> 
    <instance>  

Also, the instance element contains a "name" attribute that isn't mentioned
in the text and not specified in the DTD/Schema.

3. DTD and Schema specify a range of 0.0 to 1.0 for interpretation
confidences, while the text and all examples use a range of 0 to 100. I
would suggest changing DTD and Schema.

4. DTD and Schema define the "grammar" attribute on the "result" element to
be optional. This should also be mentioned at the end of the paragraph about
this attribute on page 77 by adding "(optional)". 

5. The Schema doesn't specify the "mode" attribute for the "input" element.
  
6. If no semantics is computed, the instance element in our ASR results is
empty. According to the new spec it should contain the same content as the
input element. What was the reason to introduce this new requirement? I
suggest to make it optional by changing the DTD definition of the <nomatch>
element to <!ELEMENT nomatch (#PCDATA|EMPTY)*>.

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year!
Klaus

_______________________________________________
Speechsc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speechsc