[MFD] Issue for MFD teleconference Thursday 10/29?

[MFD] Issue for MFD teleconference Thursday 10/29?

[MFD] Issue for MFD teleconference Thursday 10/29?

William Wagner wamwagner at comcast.net
Wed Oct 28 00:11:56 UTC 2009


At the face to face, it was indentified that the MFD "Overall" document
needed " Requirements" section.

 

The PWG process document says  "Prior to completion of the first Working
Draft, a clear statement of requirements for the standard to be produced is
required. A requirements statement documents the best effort collection of
known requirements on a particular protocol, interface, procedure or
convention. The requirements statement is important as it leads to a clear,
common understanding of the goals, provides a guide for developing the
standard, and can be used as a final test to measure the completeness of the
resulting specification.  ."

 

In  practice, the Requirements document has reverted to being a  section in
the spec draft. And one such section exists in the Scan and Resource
standards. However, I suggest that, in place of including a rather minimal
Requirements section in each Service spec, the Overall Spec and the System
spec, we do a separate but meaningful Requirements document for the set of
MFD Service and supporting documents.

 

I think a separate single Requirements document would not only be more
efficient, but it would help readers understand why we are taking a much
implemented device type and Services that have been around for many years
and creating new and very involved model descriptions. I think a meaningful
requirements document would indeed allow a "common understanding of the
goals, provide a guide for developing the standard, and [a reference] to
measure the completeness of the resulting specification."

 

I call the existing Requirements sections minimal since they consist of
Rationale, Out of Scope, and Model Mapping Conventions.  The ' Rationale'
section takes the form " There is  clear need to do this", which appears
rather circular. 'Out of Scope'  is useful in providing bounds, but does not
really help understanding what is in scope. " Model Mapping Conventions"
does not really appear to be a main aspect of requirements.

 

The process document is unclear on whether "Requirements"  should be "
Requirements for" (i.e.  why it is needed, Rational, Use Cases) or "
Requirements of" (operational requirements, what must be addressed,
constraints, need for conformity with,  and out of scope). In the case of
the MFD Service documents, the requirements should not necessarily relate to
the requirements for or of the Service but rather the requirements for and
of a model of the service consistent with an overall structure (I think. but
I too need some help in clearly stating why the modeling is necessary.)

 

So, I propose a separate  Requirements document and would like some help to
really define the need for a consistent modeling of MFD services.  So far,
the best I can find is in the charter "Currently service, device, and job
management and job submission protocols for these network MFDs are
fragmented and proprietary. " Along with this would  be some requirements of
the models (be representable in XML?  be consistent with IPP?  Be compatible
with existing products?).Pete and Ira seem to have a handle on this but I
suspect that having a clear written statement may have limited the
continuous evolution that we have been experiencing.

 

 Of course, if no one is interested, I can just copy the standard stuff we
have in the other specs and get this puppy rolling.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill Wagner

 

From: mfd-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:mfd-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Zehler,
Peter
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 7:18 AM
To: mfd at pwg.org
Subject: [MFD] MFD teleconference Thursday10/29 at 3:00 PM EDT (12:00 PM
PDT)

 

As agreed at the recent face to face meeting there will be an MFD conference
call at 3:00 PM EDT (12:00 PM PDT) Thursday October 29.  The focus of this
meeting is the Copy specification that was not covered at the meeting.  The
same document will be used.

 

 

The meeting is held in accord with the PWG Intellectual Property Policy.

 

Note the NEW Teleconference number and access code are now used.

Please contact me if you do not have the new number and pass code.

 

Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada): 1-866-469-3239 

Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-429-3300 

Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-408-856-9570 

 

Attendee access code: (by request only, please contact me if you do not have
it)

 

Agenda:

1. Identify Minute Taker

2. Approval of minutes from last meeting

 
<ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/minutes/pwg-ftf-mfd-minutes-20091013-14.pdf>


3. Agenda bashing 

4. Resolve PrinterResolution representation (PrintServiceCapabilities)

5. Discuss Media, MediaType and MediaCol representation in
<service>DocumentProcessing and IPP/WS-Print mapping

6. Discuss Copy Service Semantic Model and Service Interface- Interim Draft.


<ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/wd/wd-mfdcopymodel10-20091007.pdf> 

(also available is the "-rev" version as well as the ".doc" format for both
versions)

7. Next steps

 


Click Here to Join Live Meeting 

<https://www.livemeeting.com/cc/xerox/join?id=PWG_MFD
<https://www.livemeeting.com/cc/xerox/join?id=PWG_MFD&role=attend&pw=PQ%25%3
EFj5sN> &role=attend&pw=PQ%25%3EFj5sN>

 

 

 

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  <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/20091027/13943d87/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the mfd mailing list