| 
| Voice Tools Development Call Minutes: August 25, 2005 [message #6826] | Thu, 25 August 2005 12:00 |  | 
| Eclipse User  |  |  |  |  | Eclipse Voice Tools Development Call Minutes 
 August 25, 2005, 11am EST
 
 Attendees:
 
 Ross Yakulis, Avaya
 Frederic Gloppe, HP
 Brent D. Metz, IBM
 John Muller, Nortel
 Jeff Pedigo, SandCherry
 Andrew Wahbe, VoiceGenie
 
 The call began with a discussion of the status of the project's ascention to
 the release phase. It was stated that since
 it is taking longer than initially planned to be brought to the Technology
 PMC there is still time to modify plans to
 incorporate additional contributions.
 
 A discussion of the plans was started by detailing the contents of the
 Project plan. There were no comments on the project
 plan. The milestone plan was reviewed. It was commented that the launching
 of the web project was not part of the plan and
 a discussion of how web launching integration with the WTP components would
 occur. An action item to resolve with the WTP how
 web browsers are launched following the launch of a web project and how a
 VoiceXML execution API could be alternatively
 plugged in and what criteria would cause that to occur.
 
 A discussion of the Execution APIs began and recieved no comments. It was
 stated that the APIs need further review from
 VoiceXML browser developers to validate that the API is usable by a wide
 variety of vendors.
 
 Recognition APIs were discussed with the main topic of discussion being how
 to target a generic recognizer. It was stated
 that since MRCP is essentially a technology-neutral layer amongst
 recognition APIs that such a generic recognizer API should
 strive to follow MRCP's functions closely. A discussion of how to advertise
 function sets began. It was agreed that initial
 APIs should focus on SRGS functionality for things like testing grammars as
 there is no current editing or conversion support
 for other grammar languages.
 
 The call ended with a notice that there is a scheduling conflict with the
 next call and that issues should be discussed for the
 week on the mailing list instead.
 |  |  |  | 
Powered by 
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02898 seconds