Revised suggestion re the igr report, fro REsearch Results, after talking
with Jill, and CONFIRMING WITH EPSRC! (george douglas).
DOuglas says:
The software should go in Section (B) Other results from the research.
Jill and I suggest:
Everyone writes:
ProSynth Speech Corpus
reference: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/project/prosynth/
timescale: achieved; more development in progress
Cambridge writes in addition:
Procsy available via FTP, plus web demo
(same reference and timescale info)
UCL writes in addition:
all the other software stuff they did.
So ignore what I wrote in last email, reporduced below.
GOsh: sorry this is turning out so to be so lengthy.
I hope that's it!
Sarah
---------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Sarah Hawkins wrote:
2. Mark/Jill: the publications section says you can put software.
Shouldn;t
we put the software that's been developed?
suggested wording (for Cambridge igr):
PROCSY available via FTP (see Review Report)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 19 2001 - 11:08:59 GMT