[MFD] Namespace for Device Attributes, subsystems, or abstract capabilities

[MFD] Namespace for Device Attributes, subsystems, or abstract capabilities

[MFD] Namespace for Device Attributes, subsystems, or abstract capabilities

Zehler, Peter Peter.Zehler at xerox.com
Fri Feb 1 13:45:35 UTC 2013


Randy,

We have namespaces defined for the various versions of released schema and a namespace for use in WS-Discovery for IPP Everywhere.  <ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/www/schemas/PWGNamespaceRegistry.pdf> 
In a Web Services binding there are URNs for the objects based on the target namespace.  As far as I know we do not have URN namespaces for imaging device objects independent of specific protocol binding and version of the PWG Semantic Model schema.

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 


-----Original Message-----
From: mfd-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:mfd-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Randy Turner
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 12:29 AM
To: mfd at pwg.org
Subject: [MFD] Namespace for Device Attributes, subsystems, or abstract capabilities


Hi All,

Do we have a common (standard) URN namespace for imaging device "objects" (resources, subsystems, capabilities, services, etc.) ?

I did a quick search of some of the semantic model documents, and didn't see any reference to something like this.

Thx,
Randy


--
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
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd

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




More information about the mfd mailing list