Nancy,
Granted that considering what operations are applicable and mandatory or
optional for each service may be tedious, I believe it is necessary to do
this consideration in a service by service basis. To dictate that an
operation be mandatory before considering the detailed nature of a service
is sure to necessitate even more revisions to the "Overall" document (and
these revision activities are becoming very stale). For example, I don't
think it was clear that no "Document" operations were applicable to the Copy
Service until the specifics of that service were investigated. So I suggest
that labeling operations as mandatory and optional in the "overall" document
does not alleviate to need to consider all operations as they apply to each
specific service.
What this labeling in the "overall" document would suggest is a dictate
that the individual services MUST include certain operations and make them
mandatory, BUT only if they are applicable. To my mind, this is not only
ambiguous, it gives the "Overall" document a preemptive role that I, for
one, never intended nor think is appropriate. I intended the "Overall"
document to collect those things that are common to multiple services, both
as a convenience and to ensure consistent definitions of the same things. I
did not intend the "Overall" document to dictate what is and what is not
applicable to the individual Services; this is best done in the individual
Service specifications.
So, understanding that there are other viewpoints on this, I suggest that
this issue which you have brought up be resolved by the MFD group as a whole
at the meeting next week.
Thanks for your comments,
Bill Wagner
From: Nancy.Chen at okidata.com [mailto:Nancy.Chen at okidata.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:20 PM
To: William Wagner
Cc: mfd at pwg.org
Subject: RE: [MFD] Re: MFD Service Operations
Bill,
Thanks for pointing out the .doc version. Sorry for my oversight.
Since we are at the discussion of the "Service Operations", why not make
sure we get all required vs. optional discussed right when we are at there?
I hate to go through the same list over and over again. A subject does get
"stale" after we have to stare at it several times.
If you have trouble with some of them are required in Overall semantics, but
may not be applicable to some of the services, I think they should be so
stated in the Overall spec, mark them in Bold and Italic font to distinguish
them from the rest, and also documented in the applicable services.
I would really appreciate if we could make good progress this way.
-Nancy
"William Wagner" <wamwagner at comcast.net>
03/30/2010 07:35 PM
To
<Nancy.Chen at okidata.com>
cc
<mfd at pwg.org>
Subject
RE: [MFD] Re: MFD Service Operations
Nancy,
Thanks you for your prompt comments.
As you may notice in my original message, I have posted both *pdf and *.doc
versions.
I suggest the question of whether operations are to listed a required or
optional should be in the Overall document or in the specific service
documents be an item of discussion. I was troubled by the position that we
state them as required in the Overall document with the understanding that
they may not be applicable to a given service.
Bill Wagner
From: Nancy.Chen at okidata.com [mailto:Nancy.Chen at okidata.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 7:28 PM
To: Nancy.Chen at okidata.com
Cc: mfd at pwg.org; mfd-bounces at pwg.org; William Wagner
Subject: Re: [MFD] Re: MFD Service Operations
Bill,
Also please provide microsoft "WORD" version for people to annotate their
comments. Not all of us have the luxury of owning a copy of writable PDF
editor.
Thanks,
-Nancy
Nancy.Chen at okidata.com
Sent by: mfd-bounces at pwg.org
03/30/2010 07:23 PM
To
"William Wagner" <wamwagner at comcast.net>
cc
mfd at pwg.org
Subject
[MFD] Re: MFD Service Operations
Hi Bill,
Thanks again for the updated "MFD Service Operations" with clearly marked
issues for discussion in the upcoming meeting.
In many of our previous MFD meetings, we worked hard to come to basic
consensus on whether a service operation is "REQUIRED", or "OPTIONAL". I
think the document should reflect these working group status, as a good
basis for further discussions. It's not a final draft of course, anybody
can still challenge what have agreed so far.
I recommend that you follow the convention set in the Copy Service
specification which is in WG Last Call, by "bold" face the "REQUIRED"
operations and input/output parameters to reflect the current working
group progresses. The rest are OPTIONAL.
Again, thanks for helping us making progress,
-Nancy
"William Wagner" <wamwagner at comcast.net>
03/30/2010 06:30 PM
To
<mfd at pwg.org>
cc
<Nancy.Chen at okidata.com>
Subject
MFD Service Operations
In response to Nancy's comments , I have reposted the Service Operations
text in
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/white/ServiceOperations-20100330.pdf and
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/white/ServiceOperations-20100330.doc
There are NO changes to the text content.
One reason why this has been extracted as a separate "white" paper
document
rather than included as part of the "overall" spec is to allow
concentration
on this particular and very important aspect of the MFD services. I have
modified this section extensively, and have approached it as a new
document
because the changes have been continuing for a long period as the various
services are considered and as IPP has added operations. Therefore, there
is a definite possibility of errors in continuity and inter-relation.
Although I appreciate the added effort necessary, I therefore also request
that this section be reviewed in its entirety, not just for what the
changes
are.
Except for one brand new table, I have not flagged changes. As I have
indicated previously, I believe that in enough cases the general MFD
operation must be considered differently from the IPP precursor operation
because of the Print specific nature of the IPP Precursor. I believe that
the MFD document should be able to stand on its own in this area.
Considering the general nature of the MFD Overall document, it is not
obvious how detailed the operation description can or needs to be, and
that
is a subject for discussion.
In some cases where I am unsure of the information I have been given, I
have
put in remarks. I have formatted the PDF with balloon remarks so that the
remarks are visible ( with apologies to those who can't abide balloons).
Red highlights are mainly markers for me noting that cross references are
bad as a result of extracting this from the larger document.
Other highlights have been removed.
I appreciate constructive comments and anticipate that this section will
be
reviewed with problems resolved at the 6 April face-to-face meeting.
Thanks,
Bill Wagner
From: Nancy.Chen at okidata.com [mailto:Nancy.Chen at okidata.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:24 AM
To: William Wagner
Cc: mfd at pwg.org; mfd-bounces at pwg.org
Subject: Re: [MFD] Today's MWD conference call
Bill,
Thanks for your document update. I think many people are like me are
scratching their heads guessing and trying to understand the meaning of
various color markings in your document. Would you please do the
followings
so that WG members can easily review and provide comments for your latest
update to "Service Operations"?
1. Please provide a "WORD" version so that we can make comments right in
the
document.
2. Please explain your intent for the highlights in different colors. I
like
very much what Tom Hasting did for us in his IPP JPS2 draft. There is
clear
explanation of the different color highlights at the beginning of the
document before we proceed to read. Could you follow what Tom is doing for
IPP Working Group, so that we can provide very good review for your
document
without trying to guess what kind of comments you are expecting at those
markings. Perhaps following Tom's color code would be even better, because
then we don't have to remember different color codes for "consensus",
"issue", "question", "new changes", etc.
3. Please provide the text for your notes that are labeled [W1], [W2],
etc.
Thank you for helping us out,
-Nancy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Nancy Chen
Principal Engineer
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
03/25/2010 12:07 PM
To
<mfd at pwg.org>
cc
Subject
[MFD] Today's MWD conference call
I noticed that a table was missing in the "operations" section, so I added
it in the attached. No other significant changes. I am looking forward to
a
constructive conversation this afternoon.
Thanks,
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.orghttps://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
- C.htm
_______________________________________________
mfd mailing list
mfd at pwg.orghttps://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd
--
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/20100331/9bb6626a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 959 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/mfd/attachments/20100331/9bb6626a/attachment-0001.gif>
