Subject: [Speechsc] EMMA: Extensible MultiModal Annotation markup language support?

From: Brett Gavagni <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 08:59:06 -0400

Are there currently any plans to include the support for W3C EMMA Working 
Draft to the MRCPv2 specification for the returning of recognition 
results?

Thanks,

Brett Gavagni 
WebSphere Voice Server Development 
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/pervasive/voice_server/
(561) 862-2097 T/L (975) 
[email-masked]

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

---

From: Jerry Carter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 09:16:23 -0400

Give that EMMA is at working draft level within the W3C, it would be 
premature to require any form of EMMA support.  Making a provision in 
MRCP to support EMMA at a later date would be appropriate, though.

---

From: Brett Gavagni <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 09:34:07 -0400

The current W3 NLSML specification is also a "W3 Working Draft" and not a 
"W3 Recommendation". 

http://www.w3.org/TR/nl-spec/
Natural Language Semantics Markup Language for the Speech Interface 
Framework

W3C Working Draft 20 November 2000

The current NLSML specification is actually more outdated in terms of the 
function required to support the current SGRS specification (ie. Semantic 
Interpretation). 

My suggestion would be to amend the current MRCPv2 specification to 
include EMMA support as at least optional.

Thanks,

Brett Gavagni 

Jerry Carter <[email-masked]> 
06/01/2005 09:16 AM

To
Brett Gavagni/West Palm Beach/IBM@IBMUS
cc
[email-masked]
Subject
Re: [Speechsc] EMMA: Extensible MultiModal Annotation markup language 
support?

---

From: Jerry Carter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 09:49:49 -0400

> function required to support the current SGRS specification (ie. 

Actually, the situation for NLSML is worse.  The NLSML version that was 
used with MRCP 1.0 was an internal W3C draft that was (1) never 
published and (2) never reviewed by the working group.

> include EMMA support as at least optional.

I quite agree.

-=- Jerry Carter