On Aug 18, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Ira McDonald wrote:
>> I believe both the title and description of the new spec need changes:
>> (1) Title should be
> "Mapping of PWG Job Ticket to/from MSPS, PPD, and JDF (PJTMAP)"
> - per last week's minutes and our F2F discussion, JDF in scope
>> (2) Document filename should be
>> (3) Description should be strictly limited to PWG Job Ticket (the
> only normative reference needed for this mapping spec) and
> name MSPS, Adobe PPD, and CIP4 JDF
>> (4) If our scope is expanded to address PrintServiceCapabilities,
> then a SECOND mapping spec should be written, not a muddy
> scope job ticket mapping spec
I believe we had decided to do a single spec with two chapters/sections, one for job ticket and one for PrintServiceCapabilities.PrintJobTicketCapabilities, PrintServiceDefaults.DefaultPrintJobTicket and PrintServiceDescription since PPD and MS PSF both provide this information and there really isn't much material to put in that second chapter/section (stuff all of the supported into capabilities, the default job ticket in DefaultPrintJobTicket, and the following descriptive elements in PrintServiceDescription).
(sadly it looks like I either forgot to include that in the minutes or am remembering wrong, but I think it makes a lot of sense to include both the full job ticket mapping along with the thin PrintService discussion...)
> (5) Both directory (charter) and prefix (ch) are wrong in this
> Interim draft, per PWG Naming Policy
>> The term "PWG semantic elements" is far too fuzzy to be source
> or target for mapping - also there is no proposal to map the vast
> majority of PWG SM/2.0 elements or objects.
>> The urgent issue is non-PWG *job ticket* usage in Cloud offerings
> - capabilities are and will continue to be advertised and discovered
> by a number of different means in Cloud Print implementations.
Ira, currently Google uses PPD and PSF (what they are calling XPS) for both job ticket and capabilities/description/defaults, and since the two are closely tied together (same source data) it makes sense to "draw a picture" in the mapping spec to show how is all holds together (or doesn't, as the case may be...) It is not enough to show them how to map from PWG to PPD or PSF, we need to provide the glue for the reverse mapping, too, otherwise there is no path to full PWG SM adoption.
> - Ira
>>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
> Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SWG
> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
> Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
>http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc> mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com> Christmas through April:
> 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
> May to Christmas:
> PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
>>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
> The changes look good to me; aside from the editorial comments about the MS licensing of MSPS, and the filename (should be "wd" until approved :) I think we are good to go...
>> I will fix the minutes tonight...
>> On Aug 17, 2011, at 3:33 PM, William Wagner wrote:
>>> In accord with the information in the minutes of the face-to-face Cloud Meeting minutes of 2 August (ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/minutes/cloud-f2f-minutes-20110802.pdf), I have revised the existing, approved Cloud Imaging WG charter and posted an interim draft.
>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/wd/ch-cloud-charter-20110818-rev.pdf>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/wd/ch-cloud-charter-20110818.docx>>>> I sought to make changes in a way consistent with the original. In the interests of using concall time effectively, I request that those who prefer different wording or abbreviations post their preferred version, and that discussion be focused on content. One issue that needs to be resolved is under comment W1. “Considering that Semantic Model V2 is not yet formalized, but represents the preferred model, what do we use as a reference? If the to be issued PJT, do we loose mapping to the SM elements related to printer description?”
>>>> Since the charter already separated out the print and multifunction document activity milestones, I made no changes to these other than the dates.
>>>> (I should also observe the minutes cited above have an incorrect title and date)
>>>> Bill Wagner
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> believed to be clean. _______________________________________________
>> cloud mailing list
>>cloud at pwg.org>>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud>> ________________________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> cloud mailing list
>cloud at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud>>
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...