W3C

PLS 1.0: Candidate Recommendation Disposition of Comments

This version:
July 10, 2008
Editor:
Paolo Baggia, Loquendo

Abstract

This document details the responses made by the Voice Browser Working Group to issues raised during the Candidate Recommendation period (beginning 12 Decembre 2007 and ending 11 April 2008). Comments were provided by the public via the www-voice-request@w3.org (archive) mailing list.

Status

This document of the W3C's Voice Browser Working Group describes the disposition of comments as of July 10, 2008 on the Candidate Recommendation Pronunciation Lexicon Specification (PLS) 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 Voice Browser Activity Statement.

Table of Contents


1. Introduction

This document describes the disposition of comments in relation to Candidate Recommendation Pronunciation Lexicon Specification (PLS) Version 1.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-pronunciation-lexicon-20071212/). Each issue is described by the name of the commenter, a description of the issue, and either the resolution or the reason that the issue was not resolved.

Notation: Each original comment is tracked by a "(Change) Request" [R] designator. Each point within that original comment is identified by a point number. For example, "R200-1" is the first point in the change request number 200 for the specification.

2. Summary

ItemCommentatorNatureDisposition
R200-1Simon Reinhardt (2008-05-04)Clarification / Typo / Editorial Accepted
R200-2Simon Reinhardt (2008-05-04)Clarification / Typo / Editorial Accepted
R200-3Simon Reinhardt (2008-05-04)Clarification / Typo / Editorial Accepted
R200-4Simon Reinhardt (2008-05-04)Clarification / Typo / Editorial Accepted
R200-5Simon Reinhardt (2008-05-04)Clarification / Typo / Editorial Accepted
R200-6Simon Reinhardt (2008-05-04)Change to Existing FeatureAccepted

2.1 Clarifications, Typographical, and Other Editorial

Issue R200-1

From Simon Reinhardt (2008-05-04):

I know I'm late with my comments but I noted some things while reading the candidate recommendation for PLS. But since they are just some minor corrections I suppose they can be easily applied for the final version. I mostly avoided remarks about commas since I'm (as a non-native speaker) never really sure about commas in the English language. :-) Here goes...

In section "1.5. Glossary of Terms":

>> A URI is a unifying syntax for the expression of names and addresses of objects on the network as used in the World Wide Web.

The "on the network" bit is quite arguable, see the usage on the Semantic Web.

Resolution: Accepted

We accept Al Gilman's proposal and PLS 1.0 will align the definition with WebArch definition.

Email Trail:

Issue R200-2

From Simon Reinhardt (2008-05-04):

In section "2. Pronunciation Alphabets":

>> Another example might be "x-sampa" [X-SAMPA] an extension of SAMPA phonetic alphabet [SAMPA] to cover the entire range of characters in the International Phonetic Alphabet [IPA].

Missing "," after "[X-SAMPA]"? Missing "the" before "SAMPA".

Resolution: Accepted

We accept your proposal.

Email Trail:

Issue R200-3

From Simon Reinhardt (2008-05-04):

In section "3.1 Document Form":

>> It is RECOMMENDED that the <lexicon> element also indicate the location of the PLS schema (see Appendix A) via the xsi:schemaLocation attribute from Section 2.6.3 of XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition [XML-SCHEMA-1].

"indicates"?

Resolution: Rejected

[Al Gilman] No. 'indicate' is subjunctive here, and correct.

We agree with Al Gilman's reading and we rejected your request.

Email Trail:

Issue R200-4

From Simon Reinhardt (2008-05-04):

In section "4.5 <grapheme> Element":

>> Traditional vs Modern spellings e.g. for example in German it is common to replace "ö" with "oe".

That is not quite true. "oe" is not a modern spelling, it is just a legal replacement when you can't type the "ö". Another good example of different spellings would be when there are several official orthographies for a language, like after a spelling reform as it happened in Germany. Before that reform we would have written "Fluß", now it's "Fluss".

Resolution: Accepted

We accepted your comment and firstly proposed the following change:
[[Traditional vs Modern spellings e.g. for example in German it is common to replace " ß" with "ss".]]

We agree on your second comment and accepted your resolution:
[[Reformed spellings, e.g. in German some of the words which used to have "ß" before are now to be written with "ss".]]

Email Trail:

Issue R200-5

From Simon Reinhardt (2008-05-04):

In section "4.7 <alias> Element":

>> The <alias> element has an OPTIONAL prefer attribute analogous to the prefer attribute for the <phoneme> element; see Section 4.6 for a normative description the prefer attribute.

Missing "of" after "description".

Resolution: Accepted

We accept your proposal.

Email Trail:

2.2 Technical Errors

None.

2.3 Requests for Change to Existing Features

Issue R200-6

From Simon Reinhardt (2008-05-04):

In section "4.7 <alias> Element":

>> <alias>a multiplexed information and computing service</alias>

That's a description, not an acronym expansion. I suppose this is not the intended use of the element and therefore misleading.

Resolution: Rejected

Alias element allows to do acronym expansions or more flexible substitutions, so we prefer to keep this example. The proposal is refused.

Email Trail:

2.4 New Feature Requests

None.