Re: [Communicator-user] Communicator and VoiceXML?

[Peter G. <go...@fo...>]

Sam -

thank you very much for your long reply.

> As you say, I had proposed doing something like this, and there's
> certainly a freely-available VoiceXML 1.0 implementation out there
> (from Speechworks, distributed through CMU, I believe). VoiceXML 2.0,
> on the other hand, is a separate issue - I don't know if the
> SpeechWorks folks have any plans to release a 2.0-compliant version of
> their engine. To the best of my knowledge, no one has attempted to
> build such a module.

It looks as if they actually distribute a VoiceXML 2.0 implementation. It is 
called OpenVXI and is available at http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/openvxi/.

> I do have some comments about your preface, though. 
> ...
> But I'm still uncomfortable with describing GCSI as a
> "superset" of VoiceXML; it's actually the house that it or other
> dialogue processing modules would live in.

You are absolutely right. The expression "superset" is strongly misleading. 
Your description as a "house, where it or other dialogue processing modules 
live" is appropriate. (Actually this is exactly what I wanted to say, but the 
word "superset" was a result of my difficulty to express myself in English.)

> Furthermore, I have very mixed feelings about the relationship between
> VoiceXML and the GCSI. At the 2001 PI meeting, I hosted a session
> entitled "W3CVB and Communicator" (available at
> http://fofoca.mitre.org/doc.html) in which I argued strongly that the
> goals of standards development and the goals of the Communicator
> program are not the same, and that standards conformance can be a
> serious impediment to research. I think that's especially true in the
> case of VoiceXML 2.0, which MITRE is on record publicly as having
> serious questions about its design (see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2001OctDec/0034.html).
> I'm pretty much convinced that building advanced dialogue capabilities
> in VoiceXML would be incredibly onerous, and no researcher who values
> his or her time would attempt it. 

I totally agree with your reservation concerning VoiceXML 2.0 and that 
standard conformance just for standard conformance's sake is not useful and 
might even impede research.

> In (what I hope will be) a chapter of a forthcoming book on building
> practical dialogue systems, I outline what I believe is the
> fundamental design motivation of the GCSI: to "lower the bar to entry"
> for researchers, engineers and students to learning these
> technologies, and to build up a development community which can easily
> test and disseminate leading-edge ideas. 

My main point is:

I believe, that for cutting edge research in dialogue systems, you also need 
something like a dialogue manager. GCSI would definetly profit from such a 
dialogue manager module. That would even more lower the "bar to entry".

The next step would be to evaluate, wheter VoiceXML 1.0 or 2.0 would be an 
appropriate file format as an input for such a dialogue manager module. 
Advantages could be (1) widespread use (2) available processing software 
(OpenVXI) (3) politicial. Disadvantages are (1) standard conformance may 
impede research (2) questionable design quality especially of VoiceXML 2.0 
(3) open patent issues.

My objective is to get to know, whether other people are already working on 
such a thing like a dialogue manager module or what the thoughts are about it.

Again, thank you very much for your long answer. I am convinced that GCSI is 
really great and I greatly appreciate your work.

Cheers -

Peter