[MFD] Schema Element Table format for Imaging System Model Spec

[MFD] Schema Element Table format for Imaging System Model Spec

[MFD] Schema Element Table format for Imaging System Model Spec

Paul Tykodi ptykodi at tykodi.com
Sun Jul 7 01:15:35 UTC 2013


Hi,

 

I might not have expressed the concept that Pete described to me correctly.
With PPD files, there is frequently a large section describing UI
Constraints. These are lists of items that customers cannot use together. If
they try to select a set of options not supported by the target device, some
type of visual error icon is displayed to show them what options cannot be
used together.

 

The constraints that Pete mentioned, which could not be represented in the
XML, were the PWG elements that couldn't be used together. He was not
referring to constraints regarding how information is formatted for a
particular element.

 

He told me that the constraints describing PWG elements that cannot be used
together have previously been documented in the tables.

 

I was speaking about these particular constraints when I put forward the
question as to whether we might want to consider listing them together in
their own section.

 

Best Regards,

 

/Paul

--

Paul Tykodi
Principal Consultant
TCS - Tykodi Consulting Services LLC

Tel/Fax: 603-343-1820
Mobile:  603-866-0712
E-mail:  ptykodi at tykodi.com
WWW:   <http://www.tykodi.com/> http://www.tykodi.com

From: Ira McDonald [mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 2:17 PM
To: William A Wagner; Ira McDonald
Cc: Paul Tykodi; Michael Sweet; mfd at pwg.org
Subject: Re: [MFD] Schema Element Table format for Imaging System Model Spec

 

Hi Bill,

I agree that listing constraints is busywork and error-prone - leave the
constraints

for the underlying IPP or MIB objects - they're reflected in the SM XML
schema.

Cheers,

- Ira




Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
 <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
 <http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434

 

On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 1:49 PM, William A Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net>
wrote:

Paul and WG,

>From PWG 5105.1-2004 PWG Semantic Model  (the initial print service model),
constraints appear to be range or maxlength for integers, and Type X Keyword
for strings. There are a few other sting constraints including DateTime,
and Uri (?), Repertoire,, etc.

 

I suggest that to list all of the elements in a separate section with their
'constraints' would be cumbersome.  Keyword values are already  listed and
we could add type  ID to that listing. Numeric integer constraints (0:MAX,
1:MAX, MIN:MAX, Maxlength=1023, Maxlength=127, Maxlength=63, Maxlength=255,
Maxlength=40)  seem to be of  a limited number of values, and could be
addressed in the element tables with notes. Other strings could be
identified in the description. 

 

Note however that, with few a exceptions, this document does not define the
non-complex elements; it provides a reference to their definition. So
constraints for such elements may be helpful, but would not appear to be
critical. These were not included in the MFD Model specification.

 

I solicit comments from the rest of the SM Working Group.

Thanks.

Bill Wagner

 

 

 

 

 

From: Paul Tykodi [mailto:ptykodi at tykodi.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 5:36 PM
To: 'Michael Sweet'; 'William A Wagner'
Cc: mfd at pwg.org
Subject: RE: [MFD] Schema Element Table format for Imaging System Model Spec

 

Hi Bill,

 

I prefer the last format as well.

 

One of the things I just learned from Pete, when he was briefing me on what
I need to know for validating the Schema diagrams in section 5 (System
Configuration) of the draft SM 2.0 document, was that Inter-elemental
Constraints cannot be shown in the XML and the text representation in the
tables is used to describe the constraints.

 

I don't know whether we might want to consider creating a specific section
in the SM 2.0 document for describing the constraints or not.

 

Best Regards,

 

/Paul

--

Paul Tykodi
Principal Consultant
TCS - Tykodi Consulting Services LLC

Tel/Fax: 603-343-1820
Mobile:  603-866-0712
E-mail:  ptykodi at tykodi.com
WWW:   <http://www.tykodi.com/> http://www.tykodi.com

From: mfd-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:mfd-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Michael
Sweet
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 4:43 PM
To: William A Wagner
Cc: mfd at pwg.org
Subject: Re: [MFD] Schema Element Table format for Imaging System Model Spec

 

I prefer the last format (what was used in the MFD Common Semantics and
Model)...

 

On 2013-07-03, at 4:12 PM, William A Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net> wrote:

 

The Imaging System Semantics and Model V2 will include and update
information from MFD Common Semantics and Model and  the previous Service
specifications. Much of the contents of these documents consists of showing
hierarchical Schema graphics followed by detailed descriptions of the
elements in the diagram.  The earlier documents used three different
approaches for these descriptions, as indicated in the discussion document
posted at

 <ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/white/table_format_examples.pdf>
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/white/table_format_examples.pdf

Each approach had its proponents and detractors. The most common format was
the single row per entry table used in the MFD Common Semantics and model.

 

The Imaging System document should  use a consistent approach for this
explanation of schema elements. Although difficulty in implementing the
format should be considered, it is also important that the approach be
useful and effective in describing the schema.  The three formats are
described to allow a working group consideration and decision, hopefully by
the next Semantic Model WG conference call.

Thanks,

Bill Wagne

 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. _______________________________________________
mfd mailing list
 <mailto:mfd at pwg.org> mfd at pwg.org
 <https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd>
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd

 

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair

 


-- 
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  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/mfd/attachments/20130706/5c449326/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the mfd mailing list