[MFD] MFD Overall spec questions

[MFD] MFD Overall spec questions

[MFD] MFD Overall spec questions

William Wagner wamwagner at comcast.net
Wed Jul 8 16:21:01 UTC 2009



I think it best to see the updated schema before we discuss this stuff, so
that we don't get into discussing things that are already being changed.


What was the reason we are not having a call next week?




Bill Wagner


From: Zehler, Peter [mailto:Peter.Zehler at xerox.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 2:23 PM
To: William Wagner; mfd at pwg.org; Nancy.Chen at okidata.com
Cc: mfd-bounces at pwg.org
Subject: RE: [MFD] MFD Overall spec questions


Nancy & Bill,


I expect to have an update of the schema based on input from the Face to
Face available this week.  I'll let you know when it is posted.  (I also
expect to get the Resource specification in final form and ready for Harry
to announce this week as well.)  I do not expect AvailableResources to be
included under both Server and System.  I will have to check back on the
meeting notes to see exactly what was decided.  I think the issue will be
with AvailableResources moved under System and the existing
SupportedResources under System Description.   We need to have this as the
first item for discussion at the July 23rd phone conference.  I am available
this Thursday in the MFD timeslot and can supply LiveMeeting is there is any
interest in a teleconference if there is interest in an MFD teleconference
or focused working session.


Let me know,



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: mfd-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:mfd-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of William
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 12:13 PM
To: mfd at pwg.org; Nancy.Chen at okidata.com
Cc: mfd-bounces at pwg.org
Subject: RE: [MFD] MFD Overall spec questions




Thank you for your response. I do hope that the schema gets updated soon,
because despite Ira's contention that the document is definitive rather than
the schema, I am trying to make the document follow the schema.


The complex element AvailableResources (a term that needs some definition)
is in the inherited ServiceDescription element group. I can see that, when
in the description of a service, it applies to the resources available to
that service. I agree that these does not include resources available for
just one job.  It is not clear to me that this would not include resources
provided through the Resource Service if they are persistent.  


When applied in a System context, what is included depends upon how the
information is to be used.  English usage  gets a little muddy relative to
strict logic usage with words such as  "any" vs "all" . Your "any" response
to question 2 suggests to me that even if a resource is available to only
one service, it is included as a system element. This might be useful in an
accounting sense, but one still needs to view the Service AvailableResources
to see what can be used on a job. On the other hand, if the element includes
resources available to all supported services, this identifies resources
that can be used on any job, although perhaps not all. 


But I am still puzzled by AvailableResources  under Server as well as under
System.  At the present time there is no Subunit complex element under
System.  Each service does include a Configuration complex element that
identifies the subunits used by the service. The Subunits under Server
presumably include all of the subunits constituting the device. Similarly,
the AvailableResources  under Server would include all AvailableResources in
the device.  This would be redundant with AvailableResources under
SystemDescription if we take the "any" definition considered above.


I do not see the function of such redundancy. I think the concept of the
System is evolving. In some cases, as it SystemStatus, the System values
appear to represent the entire device. In others, such as
OperationsSupported, we consider the System as a distinct entity with its
own special operations. Perhaps System AvailableResources should identity
just those resources used by the system as a distinct functional entity? 


Opinions, please.




Bill Wagner


From: Nancy.Chen at okidata.com [mailto:Nancy.Chen at okidata.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 10:34 AM
To: William Wagner
Cc: mfd at pwg.org; mfd-bounces at pwg.org
Subject: Re: [MFD] MFD Overall spec questions


Hi Bill, 

According to my understanding, 

1. Yes, we agreed to change ResourceSupported to AvailableResources in

2. AvailableResources contains permanently installed resources readily
available to the MFD system, as compared to those needed to be downloaded
using Resource Service. I would say these are available to any supported
service in the device. 

3. AvailableResources complex element used to be under Server but not in
System. We have just started to define AvailableResources in System which
actually has the same semantics. So these two are redundant. But I think
it's useful to retain it in Server to serve as the base class for
AvailableResources in System. The relationship between the
AvailableResources under Server and that under System is just like the
relationship between the Subunits element under  Server and the Subunits
under the System. 

Pete said he will make sure we got the semantic right after the meeting. But
he is out these days, we should double check with him in the next
teleconference for the correct semantics. 

Principal Engingeer 
Solutions and Technology 
Oki Data 
2000 Bishops Gate Blvd. 
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 
Phone: (856) 222-7006 
Email: Nancy.Chen at okidata.com 

"William Wagner" <wamwagner at comcast.net> 
Sent by: mfd-bounces at pwg.org 

07/06/2009 10:10 PM 


<mfd at pwg.org> 




[MFD] MFD Overall spec questions



I have been working on what has turned out to be a major re-organization,
based on the comments at the June face-to-face. At this point, I have a few
rather low-level questions with respect to System as represented in the

1.     SystemDescription includes the ServiceDescription element group,
which includes ResourcesSupported. I have a note that we changed that to
AvailableRescources. Is that correct?

2.     In the System  context, does ResourcesSupported /AvailableRescources
deal will all the resources available to any supported service in the
device, or only to resources available to all supported services in the

3.     How does this relate to the AvailableResources complex element under
Server, which is at the same level as System , Services and Subunits?



Bill Wagner

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

mfd mailing list
mfd at pwg.org

This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

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...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/mfd/attachments/20090708/55a1e14f/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the mfd mailing list