My comments are inline below.
Xerox Research Center Webster
Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com
Voice: (585) 265-8755
FAX: (585) 265-7441
US Mail: Peter Zehler
800 Phillips Rd.
Webster NY, 14580-9701
From: William Wagner [mailto:wamwagner at comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 4:48 PM
To: 'Ira McDonald'; Zehler, Peter; mfd at pwg.org
Subject: RE: MFD Schema updated
Although I think the schema changes make sense, they do play havoc with
MFD Overall document, and I suspect that there may be further changes.
any rate, a few more questions in working with the current schema.
1. The schema appears to show 0..1 instances of each of the Server's
constituent elements. I thought that a Server must have one and no more
one System. And is an MFD an MFD if it does not include at least one
<PZ>The next schema will have a single instance of System and Services.
I don't know of a way to represent at least one instance of the services
defined in Services using just XML schema.</PZ>
2. With the absorption of Subunits and Available Resources into the
is the "Relationships" Diagram (Fig 3 in the current overall MFD
but copped from the Scan Service spec) valid? This diagram shows
and Subunits on the same level, but does not show the System.
<PZ>The section is the functional overview as opposed to the realization
of the model in a schema. An MFD does contain services and the
relationship does not quite map to the schema. We do have a container
element which is Server. When discussing Services within an MFD that
maps to Services under Server. When we discuss Subunits within an MFD
that maps to SystemConfigurations within System. It looks as though
there is some inconsistency as to what element represents the MFD in the
schema. I am not sure how this should be resolved. I believe there are
transport endpoints at which network services are available. For the
individual MFD Services (e.g. Print, Scan) the schema element XxxService
(e.g. Server.Services.PrintServices.PrintService) represents the active
object. For the MFD as a whole the Schema element Server.System
represents the active object. I have begun defining a Web Service for
the MFD as a whole. It seems to me that this inconsistency should be
discussed this Thursday.</PZ>
3. Would not each service need a Configuration element? Why do EmailIn,
EmailOut, FaxIn not include it?
<PZ>They are just placeholders right now and have not been fleshed out
since the services were first identified. The update has been made in
the next version of the schema./PZ>
4. I do not understand why FaxOut and Scan do not include
while all other services (except Resource) do include it.
<PZ>It is an oversight and will be corrected in the next version of the
5. EmailIn and EmailOut are listed as services in the Schema, but I
recall discussing what they are, and they did not appear on Figure 1 -
Services with Primary Interfaces when we first worked up that diagram.
are these services? We have described them as facsimile services using
email (but not IETF fax, which does use SMTP). And if they are fax
calling them email certainly causes confusion. And what is distinctive
such services so that we cannot collapse them into FaxIn and FaxOut, as
did will all of the other facsimile services?
<PZ>My assumption is that these have been collapsed into the Fax
services and are simply vestigial code. I will remove them in the next
version of the schema. We can add them back in if there is a need for
them I am overlooking.</PZ>
I would appreciate some comments and clarifications.
From: Ira McDonald [mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:45 PM
To: Zehler, Peter; Ira McDonald; mfd at pwg.org
Cc: William Wagner
Subject: Re: MFD Schema updated
Hi Pete, Wednesday (15 July 2009)
Here are my comments on 10 July SM/2.0 schema:
(1) I like the generalization of Printer[Status/Description] elements
reflected in PwgDeprecated.xsd
- I agree with Bill that there may yet be more to generalize
- Note this boils down to applying IPP to MFD services - Good Thing
(2) I like the rework of System
(3) I like the rework of NaturalLanguage and Charset
- IETF just approved RFC 4646bis, so a new RFC reference this fall
(4) In SubunitStates please capitalize (for consistency):
coverOpen/Closed, interlockOpen/Closed, and other
(5) In SubunitStatus type definition and numerous other places in schema
- SPY has jumbled XML comments randomly out-of-line
(6) StorageDataEncryption should be StorageDataEncryptionIsEnabled,
since it's a boolean not an enum (w/ default to false)
- see lines 59 to 65 in Subunits.xsd
(7) MediaPathStatus should include SheetsCompleted like
ScanMediaPathStatus (though the property's not in Printer MIB)
- What are the semantics?
- Are these Lifetime or PowerOn counters?
(8) FinisherSupply (from Finisher MIB) and
MarkerSupply (from Printer MIB) should probably be combined into
- in recent MIB walks, many manufacturers list FinisherSupply stuff
in prtMarkerSuppliesTable (where types like 'staple' are defined)
- the advantage of using the common table (among others) is that
Finisher supplies show up in HP WJA and other fleet mgmt tools
(9) I like the current ImagingJob and ImagingJobTicket classes
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
email: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Zehler, Peter<Peter.Zehler at xerox.com>
> I updated the MFD site with the schema version I last sent to you.
>> 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
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.