>Return-Path: <pwg-owner at pwg.org>
>From: rbergma at dpc.com>Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 07:42:17 PDT
>Apparently-To: pwg at pwg.org>Subject: Agenda for JMP in NYC
>>I would like to suggest the following agenda for the JMP meeting next
>>I strongly recommend that all discussions and decisions relating to
>the Job Monitor Project be included in a set of minutes for those
>(such as ME) that are not able to attend the meeting. I would like
>to be able to review the outcome in a timely manner prior to the next
>meeting. Due to the lack of minutes for the JMP in the June and July
>meetings, we have lost some important work.
No, the agreements have been reflected in the specification that I
updated between each meeting. I'm sorry that I didn't also produce
minutes, but it seemed more important to update the spec than produce
minutes. So none of the agreements from the June and July meetings have
>>1. Completion of the review of the proposed objects.
Here is the spec that I updated one week before the August
meeting that was cancelled at the last minute. See
-rw-r--r-- 1 pwg pwg 186368 Aug 22 23:30 jmp-spec.doc
-rw-r--r-- 1 pwg pwg 621572 Aug 22 23:37 jmp-spec.psr
The revison marks show the agreements reached at the July meeting.
However, we should start with where we left off. If we have time we
can also review the revisions to see if they accurately reflect the
>>2. How does the object "jobDeviceUsed" relate to the other objects in
> the accounting/status group? This relationship should be fully
> defined relative to the other objects in the accounting group as
> well as how it will be used by an end device (printer) and an
> intermediate device (File server).
>>3. Discussion of the need for the "Job Parameters" objects.
>> - Which items in this group are only required for job submission?
>> - Do job submission parameters belong here?
>> - Which items in the group can move into the accounting group?
>> I propose that "jobCopiesRequested" be change to
> "jobCopiesCompleted" and moved into the accounting group. The
> remaining items should be removed.
>>4. What value does "jobName" add to the identification group? Is
> this value sufficient to warrant the inclusion of this object?
> I propose that this object be removed.
>>5. Are items #2 and #3 in the identification group needed? These
> objects appear to provide only routing information. I do not
> feel that routing information adds any value for job monitoring.
> These objects do not add any significant information required
> for job identification.
6. Lets review Ron's simplified definitions as well. See his mail send
> Ron Bergman
> Dataproducts Corp
>rbergma at dpc.com>>>