PWG> Comments on the PWG Semantic Model document version 0.06, dated J une 17, 2002

PWG> Comments on the PWG Semantic Model document version 0.06, dated J une 17, 2002

PWG> Comments on the PWG Semantic Model document version 0.06, dated J une 17, 2002

Hastings, Tom N hastings at
Thu Jun 20 19:37:02 EDT 2002

Here are my comments on the document.  Unfortunately, I won't be able to be
at either the PSI or the PWG meeting to discuss.  Have a good meeting.

1. The WG should consider whether the 10-page summary of the attributes in
section 2.3 (pages 14 through 23) should be moved back to the appendix where
the summary of the actions is.  Then section 2 will be reduced from 18 pages
to 9 pages (pages 6-14) on the Data Class attributes.  The figures in
section 2 give the names of the attributes and how they are grouped which
gives the reader a good overview of the attribute and object part of the
model.  With such a move, section 3 Actions and 4 status codes combined will
be roughly the same size at 6 pages (pages 24-29) as section 2 (9 pages).
This was Melinda Grant's suggestion which was put into version 0.2, 5/23/02.

2. The use of the term "Content" instead of "Document" in attribute and
object names seems a step backwards and will lead to confusion with the
existing standards that have already incorporated IPP semantics into them,
such as IPP, UPnPv1, Bluetooth, and the OMG Print Facility, and the
implementations of these standards.  Also ISO DPA used the term Document.
The PWG will look silly progressing a Semantic Model that covers a lot of
existing and future practice, if we change the commonly used terminology.

If the reason for the change is to allow other types of electronic
representation to be submitted in a print job, such as fonts, forms, logos,
etc., we can add a "DocumentType" attribute which indicates the type as:
'printable', 'font', 'form', 'logo', etc.  This is what ISO DPA did.

3. Page 9, section 2.2, Page 12, section 2.2.2 Figure 8, and page 15,
section 2.3.2 Job Attribute:
The Job attributes that a client supplies the values for should not be
grouped with the Job attributes that the Printer alone sets.   The latter
could be called Job Description attributes, as in IPP and the former called
just Job Attributes.

More comments later.


-----Original Message-----
From: Zehler, Peter [mailto:PZehler at]
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 11:29
To: 'BERKEMA,ALAN C (HP-Roseville,ex1)'; ps at; pwg at
Subject: PS> PWG semantic model document version for PWG meeting


I have uploaded the version of the PWG Semantic Model document to be used at
the PWG meeting next week.  I have taken Allen's version and put back the
semantics for Actions but limited it to a high level description.  Detailed
discussion of parameters remain in a section dedicated to an IPP mapping of
the print semantics.  I have also done some other minor edits.  

We will use the PDF version, which has line numbers, in our conversations.

The PDF version is available at
MS Word version is available at

				Peter Zehler
				Xerox Architecture Center
				Email: PZehler at
				Voice:    (716) 265-8755
				FAX:      (716) 265-8871 
				US Mail: Peter Zehler
					        Xerox Corp.
					        800 Phillips Rd.
					        M/S 128-30E
					        Webster NY, 14580-9701

-----Original Message-----
From: BERKEMA,ALAN C (HP-Roseville,ex1) [mailto:alan_berkema at]
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 5:31 PM
To: ps at; pwg at
Subject: PS> Another view of the PWG semantic model

Here is another cut at the PWG Semantic Model
It started with Peter's and attempts to provides a more
generic model with the IPP specifics in the Appendix.
It also groups the collections of attributes differently.

More information about the Pwg mailing list