Subject: RE: [Speechsc] Problem with draft-6 RECOGNIZE command and test/uri-listcontent type

From: "Bennett, Patrick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:00:53 -0500

If the MRCP spec is indeed referring to what you say, then it definitely
needs re-worded.  It is far from clear from the specification that this
is a precedence of how in-grammar ambiguities are resolved.  If in fact
the MRCP spec wants to mirror VoiceXML's definition (which IMO is also
poorly defined) then it needs to specifically reference it.

________________________________

From: Dave Burke [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 10:25 AM
To: Bennett, Patrick; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Speechsc] Problem with draft-6 RECOGNIZE command and
test/uri-listcontent type

The precedence is not related to weighting. The text here covers the
case if you had two grammars say gram1.grxml and gram2.grxml both of
which recognise the token "speech" but return a different semantic
interpretation. If gram2.grxml follows gram1.grxml in the uri-list then
it is gram1.grxml that is matched and it is gram1.grxml's semantic
interpretation result that is returned in the NLSML.

This is also required for VoiceXML 2.x behaviour (see
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-voicexml20-20040316/#dml3.1.4).

Dave

	----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Bennett, Patrick <mailto:[email-masked]>  

	To: [email-masked] 

	Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 4:09 PM

	Subject: [Speechsc] Problem with draft-6 RECOGNIZE command and
test/uri-listcontent type

	According to the latest draft on page 89:

	   ...The RECOGNIZE method MUST carry the grammars that need to
be 

	   activated for that RECOGNIZE method, in its message body. The

	   grammars that need to be activated can be specified in one of
3 

	   ways. The grammar content could be specified as a
mime-content in 

	   the message body. It could be a simple list of grammar URIs 

	   specified in a mime-content of type text/uri-list, in which
case the 

	   order of the URI refer to the precedence order of the
grammars 

	   during the recognize. ...

	The problem here is the statement "in which case the order of
the URI refer to the precedence order of the grammars during the
recognize."

	Well, what is the EXACT precedence?  Shouldn't each of the
grammars be considered as equally weighted alternatives?  Ideally, all
must be weighted equally unless a specific weight parameter was
specified with each URI.

	As currently specified, this part of the specification is
basically worthless.  No MRCP client would ever send multiple URIs to an
MRCP server via a uri-list since the weighting applied to each grammar
is completely undefined.

	This really needs to be corrected.

	Patrick Bennett

________________________________

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

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

---

From: "Bennett, Patrick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:32:24 -0500

Yes, #2 definitely needs to mention what the precedence applies to.  It
is far too confusing as currently worded.  I read it as implying grammar
weighting.  If it's meant to conform to VoiceXML behavior, it needs to
specifically reference it.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David R. Oran [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 11:02 AM
> To: Dave Burke
> Cc: Bennett, Patrick; [email-masked]
> I agree with Dave, but I also believe the current text is quite
> torturous and prone to misinterpretation. I had held off screwing
> around with it because of my shaky understanding of the "one-of-rule-
> id" stuff but now that I think I can get it right I've taken a whack
> at it.
> 
> This is what the in-progress version of the spec says:
> 
> The RECOGNIZE request uses the message body to specify the grammars
> applicable to the request. The active grammar(s) for the request can
> be specified in one of 3 ways.
> 
> 1. The grammer may be placed directly in the message body using MIME
> content. If more than one grammar is included in the body, the order
> of inclusion controls the corresponding precedence for the grammars
> during recognition.
> 2. The body may contain a list of grammar URIs specified in a mime-
> content of type text/uri-list. The order of the URIs determines the
> corrensponding precedence for the grammars during recognition.
> 3. The active grammar among a set of grammars can specified using a
> One-Of-Rule-Id-URI header in the message. This header (see Section
> 9.4.24 (One-Of-Rule-Id-URI)) refers to a specific <one-of> rule-id
> contained in the grammar (or grammars) specified in the body of the
> message.
> 
> Are further adjustments needed?
> 
> 
> On Jun 14, 2005, at 11:25 AM, Dave Burke wrote:
> 
> > The precedence is not related to weighting. The text here covers
> > the case if you had two grammars say gram1.grxml and gram2.grxml
> > both of which recognise the token "speech" but return a different
> > semantic interpretation. If gram2.grxml follows gram1.grxml in the
> > uri-list then it is gram1.grxml that is matched and it is
> > gram1.grxml's semantic interpretation result that is returned in
> > the NLSML.
> >
> > This is also required for VoiceXML 2.x behaviour (see http://
> > www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-voicexml20-20040316/#dml3.1.4).
> >
> > Dave
> > From: Bennett, Patrick
> > Subject: [Speechsc] Problem with draft-6 RECOGNIZE command and test/
> > uri-listcontent type
> >
> >    ...The RECOGNIZE method MUST carry the grammars that need to be
> >
> >    grammars that need to be activated can be specified in one of 3
> >
> >    ways. The grammar content could be specified as a mime-content in
> >
> >    specified in a mime-content of type text/uri-list, in which case
> > the
> >
> >    order of the URI refer to the precedence order of the grammars
> >
> > The problem here is the statement "in which case the order of the
> > URI refer to the precedence order of the   grammars during the
> > recognize."
> >
> > Well, what is the EXACT precedence?  Shouldn't each of the grammars
> > be considered as equally weighted alternatives?  Ideally, all must
> > be weighted equally unless a specific weight parameter was
> > specified with each URI.
> >
> > As currently specified, this part of the specification is basically
> > worthless.  No MRCP client would ever send multiple URIs to an MRCP
> > server via a uri-list since the weighting applied to each grammar
> > is completely undefined.
> >