Added to all other's review comments -
Comment on Schema version 1.119 - the Scan Service does not have Document
object in Job object. When did we decide to loose the document object(s)
in Scan job?
Comments on the document -
1) Table 1 Terminology
ADF - need a period at the end of the last sentence.
Document - need a period at the end of the last sentence.
Saved Job - "A saved job can be" ? Is this an incomplete sentence or an
undeleted text fragment?
Service - need a period at the end of the last sentence, not a comma.
2) Table 7 Power Monitor Elements
Wrong reference for PowerStateMessage: should be para 5.2.2 not 5.4.2
3) Table 43
Wrong description for "Compression" element: the description text "range
of compression factors supported" should be for "CompressionQualityFactor"
element
The text for Compression element should be: "the compression algorithms
supported"
"Resolution" element: remove the * in front of "Resolution"
The elements of Resolution should be "CrossFeedDir", "FeedDir", not "Cross
Feed", "Feed".
Description text for these elements are missing, or provide references.
See Scan Spec 7.1.2.1.16.1 and 7.1.2.1.16.2
4) Table 45
change "rangeofint" to "range of int" in all occurrences in the table.
5) Some or many elements are missing description/semanitc text for many
tables listed below. At least reference to the original document where
semantics are defined should be provided.
-Tables 44, 49 (almost empty for elements of Document Format Details), 51,
52 (a couple of DataTypes are missing too), 53, 59, 60, 63, 64, 68
I know it's a lot trying to fill in the description of every element in
the table. However, since the table is the only place for a very "terse"
description of or reference to the semantics of every element, and the
elements are common to more than one service, we need to make sure their
semantics are not deviated further in future specs. This is the main
purpose of this Common Semantics document. Please, unless the semantics is
obvious by the name of the element, we need to provide the semantic
description text or the appropriate references.
6) Table 65
ImagesCompleted and ImpressionsCompleted should be given "either/or"
descriptions like it was done in Table 57.
7) Security Consideration
Are we all agreed to provide a boiler plate for this section to not only
reference the existing IEEE 2600 standard, but also call out MFD model
specifics that implementers need to consider in order to not only to
comply to MFD Service Common Semantics, but also to the IEEE 2600
standard? I urge we do so.
Thanks,
-Nancy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Chen, PWG Vice-Chair
Principal Engineer
Solutions and Technology
Oki Data
2000 Bishops Gate Blvd.
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
Phone: (856)222-7006
--
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/20110223/223f61d8/attachment-0001.html>