PML: A Language Interface to Distributed Voice-Response Units

  • J. Christopher Ramming
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1686)


Wide-area networks such as the Internet support distributed applications that occasionally incorporate services owned and operated by third parties. These third-party network services must be reliable and secure; they must support efficient and responsive applications; finally, they must be cost-effective. Can programming languages contribute to achieving these goals? This paper responds to that question by relating experience with the Phone Markup Language (PML), and its role in a project code-named “PhoneWeb”. The PhoneWeb provides Voice Response Unit (VRU) capabilities to untrusted remote clients by accepting PML programs and executing them: PML acts as the PhoneWeb “service interface”. By using a language as the service interface, we have obtained the performance benefits due to mobile code; and through restrictions on our language we have achieved security and reliability. The resulting service allows us to timeshare the underlying hardware, yielding a solution that is more cost-effective than its alternatives.


System Call Interactive Voice Response Service Logic Service Interface Concrete Syntax 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. Fischell, S. Kanwa., and D. Furman, “Interactive voice technology applications,” AT&T Technical Journal, vol. 69, Sept./Oct. 1990. A good overview of IVR issues.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Berners-Lee and D. Connolly, “Hypertext markup language (html),” Working Draft of the Internet Engineering Task Force, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Jagadeesan, C. Puchol, and J. Von Olnhausen, “Safety property verification of Esterel programs and applications to telecommunications software,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, Volume 939 of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 127–140, July 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Jagadeesan, A. Porter, C. Puchol, J. C. Ramming, and L. G. Votta, “Specification-based testing of reactive software: Tools and experiments,” in The Nineteenth International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 525–535, May 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Berry and G. Gonthier, “The Esterel synchronous programming language: design, se mantics, implementation,” Science of Computer Programming, vol. 19, pp. 87–152, 1992.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Personal communication. Amy Ruth Ward, Stanford University and AT&T Labs.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Atkins, T. Ball, T. Baran, A. Benedikt, C. Cox, D. Ladd, P. Mataga, C. Puchol, J. Ramming, K. Rehor, and C. Tuckey, “Integrated web and telephone service creation.,” The Bell Labs Technical Journal, vol. 2, pp. 19–35, Winter 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Atkins, T. Ball, A. Benedikt, G. Bruns, C. Cox, P. Mataga, and K. Rehor, “Experience with a domain specific language for form-based services,” in Usenix Conference on Domain-Specific Languages, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    PostScript Language Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, 1985.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. Wall and R. L. Schwartz, Programming PERL. O’Reilly & Associates, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Thibault, C. Consel, and G. Muller, “Safe and efficient network programming,” tech. rep., IRISA / INRIA — Universite de Rennes 1, February 1998.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Christopher Ramming
    • 1
  1. 1.AT&T LabsMenlo ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations