Sarah (et al) my response to the Procsy/ProXML issue is
(1) we should try to get everything into whatever flavour of xml does
the job. I think we would benefit substantially for a as 'unified' an
XMLl software suite as we can get - and having Procsy in ProXML would be
a move towards this.
(2) I don't know what the issues with ProXML are but given that we've
got it it would seem sensible to stick with it (with whatever tweaking
might be appropriate/necessary) rather than moving to another scripting
language.
I've be experimenting with Procsy (in Python) and it's no real hassle to
write additional stuff but I think we'd probably make faster progress if
it was in XML - the real issue is, I think, the one that Sarah
identifies.... MarkW's time and what would have to be left undone if he
had to do the rewirte. I don't think I've got anything sensible to say
here as I think it's only the groups who are actually having to get
practical work done who can make the judgement call.
best
John
On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:58:34 +0000 (GMT) sh110@cam.ac.uk (Sarah Hawkins)
wrote:
>This is getting more and more confusing. I thought that (the revised,
>July-ish) ProXML would do everything that pro(c)sy needs, but later, I
>thought I understood from MarkW that ProXML currently will not do
>everything that pro(C)sy needs it to.
> I therefore thought that that issue must have been discussed, and
>MarkW's view confirmed, in the meeting of the two Marks in early
>November.
> If MarkW is right, then I think that the answer to MarkH's question
>(below) re "what the disadvantages of switching to ProXML are" is "if
>it
>ain't broke, don't fix it, especially if fixing it takes time and
>provides no advantage beyond it looking neater."
> If MarkH still thinks that ProXML does do everything that's needed,
>then
>we have differing opinions between the two people most qualified to
>judge.
>So, could the two Marks please have another discussion, as a matter of
>urgency? The phone will do, I think. I can be involved in a three-way
>call
>as necessary. MarkW will be at work next Thurs and Fri.
>
>This issue *must* be resolved immediately. We are already falling
>behind
>schedule.
>
>MarkH, it seems possible that I have misunderstood something. Equally,
>could you have, for example re what HLsyn needs as input? Please do
>give
>me a call ASAP if you think I can resolve anything before next
>Thursday.
>Home phone: 01954 210181.
>
>best wishes
>Sarah
>
>
>On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, Mark Huckvale wrote:
>
>> At 15:23 24/11/00 +0000, you wrote:
>> > Below is a text mainly written by Mark W. It basically asks "is it
>> >worthwhile to rewrite Pro(c)sy?"
>>
>> I don't see any sensible alternative to writing PROSY in ProXML
>> at the moment. The alternatives are to stick with Python which
>> doesn't integrate with our XML structure very well, or to switch
>> to a third different scripting language.
>>
>> I think there is a debate about whether it is worth while making
>> PROCSY "stand alone" so that you wouldn't need to use ProSynth
>> prosodic structures:- it might be useful for other people working
>> in speech perception.
>>
>> I would like to hear someone describe what the disadvantages of
>> changing to ProXML are.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>
>Sarah
>
>_____________________________________________________________________
>
> Dr. Sarah Hawkins Email: sh110@cam.ac.uk
> Dept. of Linguistics Phone: +44 1223 33 50 52
> University of Cambridge Fax: +44 1223 33 50 53
> Sidgwick Avenue or +44 1223 33 50 62
> Cambridge CB3 9DA
> United Kingdom
John Local
British Academy Reader
Professor of Phonetics and Linguistics
Department of Language and Linguistic Science
University of York
Heslington
York YO10 5DD
Tel 01904 432658
E-mail lang4@york.ac.uk
URL http://www.york.ac.uk/~lang4
**********************************************************************
Internet communications are not secure and therefore
the University of York does not accept legal responsibility for the
contents
of this message. Any views or opinions presented are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of the University of York unless otherwise specifically stated.
**********************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 27 2000 - 10:11:17 GMT