[MFD] Schema Element Table format and other questions

[MFD] Schema Element Table format and other questions

[MFD] Schema Element Table format and other questions

William A Wagner wamwagner at comcast.net
Fri Jul 12 14:09:12 UTC 2013


For discussion on Monday's SM call, there are several items that need to be
resolved for us to proceed with the Imaging System Model specification. Some
of these affect the Cloud effort as well.
	1. Schema Graphics: There is a separate message on this. I propose
to use the Liquid XML format. The more critical thing is that the Schema is
up-to-date and correct.
	2. Copy Service: Mike indicated that we must establish the
characteristics of and handling of hardcopy document. I fully agree that we
need to "support hardcopy documents the same way across the model and expose
the "optimal" set of services needed". The need (or not) for a separate Copy
service will then be more clear. This is critical both for SM and Cloud
activities.	
	3. Element Table Format: As of this time, I count 4 preferences for
the single line per entry table (including mine) and two for the multiple
line entry table. I should note  that there are almost 70 single line per
entry tables in the MFD Model spec, most of which  could be updated and
reused, that would need to be redone if we went to the multiple line per
entry format. I think that the group needs to perceive a significant
advantage to the multiple line format to justify the additional (very
tedious) effort. 
Also, the purpose of the "Constraint" field has become unclear. I had
indicated how it has been used, which does not appear to agree with Paul's
comment. At any rate, I suggest that the Multivalued and Group fields (shown
in the graphics), and the Constraint field are unnecessary, further
diminishing the justification for the multiline format.
	4. Finally, I think we need to reconsider the title of the Spec. We
did have and Semantic Model 1, which was the Print Spec.. Then we had the
MFD Model and Common Semantics spec, which WAS Semantic Model 2. This is the
Imaggn System Spec... Semantic Model 3.0?
Thanks,
Bill Wagner

-----Original Message-----
From: mfd-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:mfd-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of
Manchala, Daniel
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:03 PM
To: 'mfd at pwg.org'
Subject: [MFD] Schema Element Table format for Imaging System Model

The paragraph format is certainly verbose and the number of (MS Word)
paragraph levels that one needs to go to explain the complex type, and the
indentation would make it ugly.

The multirow per entry table seems to be ok with the following changes: make
the first and second rows the same font size (perhaps size 11) with the
table/column headings in larger font size (same as surrounding text size or
size 12) and each element name in bold or bold-italic.

Thanks,
Daniel.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 16:12:27 -0400
From: "William A Wagner" <wamwagner at comcast.net>
Subject: [MFD] Schema Element Table format for Imaging System Model
	Spec
To: <mfd at pwg.org>
Message-ID: <00b501ce7829$a8d49760$fa7dc620$@net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

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 

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
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