[IPP] [MFD] Don't redefine Hardcopy Document

[IPP] [MFD] Don't redefine Hardcopy Document

[IPP] [MFD] Don't redefine Hardcopy Document

Michael Sweet msweet at msweet.org
Wed Aug 7 15:54:42 UTC 2013


That would be fine with me as well (Scan doesn't have the Add operation so we don't need to worry about AddScanScannedDocument :)


On 2013-08-07, at 11:52 AM, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Mike,
> 
> Or "Add<service>ScannedDocument"?  "Hardcopy" is causing some
> confusion, it seems.
> 
> Cheers,
> - Ira
> 
> 
> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
> Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
> 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
> Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
> Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Michael Sweet <msweet at msweet.org> wrote:
> Ira,
> 
> IIRC, all of the SM operations use <service> in their names, currently Add<service>HardcopyDocument, Send<service>Document, and Send<service>Uri.
> 
> Using Add<service>ScanDocument might get confusing.  Add<service>DocumentFromScanner? Or Send<service>DocumentFromScanner to retain consistency with the other Send operations?
> 
> 
> On 2013-08-07, at 11:32 AM, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Paul,
>> 
>> No - I object to AddHardcopyDocument.  The only NEW kind of document
>> (other than w/ data by value or w/ data by reference) is a scanned document.
>> No other service would ever be infixed in your proposal.
>> 
>> I much prefer AddScanDocument as parallel to [Add/Send]Document.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> - Ira
>> 
>> 
>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
>> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
>> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
>> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
>> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
>> Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
>> 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
>> Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
>> Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Paul Tykodi <ptykodi at tykodi.com> wrote:
>> Hi Ira,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Following your logic, should we consider maintaining AddHardcopyDocument as the top level in the SM tree and then expand the model with Add<RelevantPWGDefinedService>Document at the next level in the model for each service that can support hardcopy document input?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> /Paul
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Paul Tykodi
>> Principal Consultant
>> TCS - Tykodi Consulting Services LLC
>> 
>> Tel/Fax: 603-343-1820
>> Mobile:  603-866-0712
>> E-mail:  ptykodi at tykodi.com
>> WWW:  http://www.tykodi.com
>> 
>> From: mfd-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:mfd-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Ira McDonald
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 11:16 AM
>> To: Zehler, Peter; Ira McDonald
>> Cc: IPP at pwg.org; mfd at pwg.org; Michael Sweet
>> Subject: Re: [MFD] [IPP] Don't redefine Hardcopy Document
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Which I think implies that I'd like to rename AddHardcopyDocument to
>> 
>> AddScanDocument.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> - Ira
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
>> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
>> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
>> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
>> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
>> Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
>> 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
>> Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
>> Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> At the risk of adding confusion...
>> 
>> We speak of submitting Jobs with document data by reference (URI)
>> or by value (attached). 
>> 
>> 
>> Why not just add "by scan (local scanner)".
>> 
>> What I don't like about the term "Hardcopy Document Object" is that 
>> the word Scan or Scanner isn't there, but this is always the source.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> - Ira
>> 
>> PS - I dislike putting titlecase prefixes on Document Object or Job
>> 
>> Object - it muddies readability.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
>> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
>> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
>> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
>> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
>> Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
>> 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
>> Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
>> Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Zehler, Peter <Peter.Zehler at xerox.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Mike,
>> 
>> Well, I guess I’ll be quiet now except to say it would be a good time to describe the attributes and constraints on all three types of Documents. J
>> 
>> Pete
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Peter Zehler
>> 
>> Xerox Research Center Webster
>> Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com
>> Voice: (585) 265-8755
>> FAX: (585) 265-7441
>> US Mail: Peter Zehler
>> Xerox Corp.
>> 800 Phillips Rd.
>> M/S 128-25E
>> Webster NY, 14580-9701
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Michael Sweet [mailto:msweet at msweet.org] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 10:14 PM
>> 
>> 
>> To: Zehler, Peter
>> Cc: IPP at pwg.org; mfd at pwg.org
>> Subject: Re: [IPP] Don't redefine Hardcopy Document
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Pete,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I guess we are in violent agreement.  One comment below.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On 2013-08-06, at 12:54 PM, "Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler at xerox.com> wrote:
>> 
>> ..
>> 
>> This is the difference between a Hardcopy Document and a Hardcopy Document /Object/. We need to define the latter and not the former.
>> 
>> <PZ>I see no subclasses of Documents in the PWG Semantic Model or IPP.  Whether a document is added to a Job by value, by reference, or by reference to the output of the scanner subunit, it is still just a Document object. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I am not suggesting a subclass of document.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> We already categorize documents as "referenced" and "with attached document data". For hardcopy documents we would have a Document Object containing description attributes/elements that identify the source and properties of the hardcopy document.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I chose to call it a "Hardcopy Document Object" as opposed to a "Document Object with Associated Hardcopy Document Input Elements".  How the digital representation is stored and when exactly the document is scanned are, IMHO, implementation specific.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> _____________
>> Michael Sweet
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ipp mailing list
>> ipp at pwg.org
>> https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
> 
> _____________
> Michael Sweet
> 
> 

_____________
Michael Sweet

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20130807/61ba52b5/attachment.html>


More information about the ipp mailing list