Hi,
I'm in favor of the actual attributes, WITHOUT any new operations,
as either "chosen" or "actual". IPP, Novell NDPS, ISO DPA, and a
whole lot of vendor proprietary DPA-based protocols have supported
the multiple attribute tuple "base, base-default, base-supported"
for years. Many of those also supported "base-requested" and
"base-chosen" for the exact reason Harry has raised.
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
PS - The non-existent PWG IPP WG that Harry and Pete alluded to
has already produced 4 IEEE/ISTO standards. For the Distributed
Notifications and the IPPGET offloading via redirect, Tom Hastings
and I are working with Harry Lewis and Bob Herriot right now to
write two more. I contend that we should simply never use the
second, PWG unique, IPP mailing list. We need to IANA register
ALL of the IPP extension attributes and their values. The PWG
does NOT maintain the authoritative registry of IPP attributes.
Through Tom's good work with Michelle at IANA, IANA _will_ do
that registry. Oh and three more IETF IPP docs that are stalled
are already slated to be reissued as PWG IPP docs (INDP and
mailto Notifications and Driver Install). That's a lot of specs
for a non-existent PWG IPP WG...
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:37 PM
To: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)
Cc: McDonald, Ira; Zehler, Peter; sm at pwg.org
Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes
I'm not opposed to new operations but I'll observe that multiple attributes
is in keeping with the way IPP is currently structured.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
"TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)" <robert_b_taylor at hp.com>
10/03/2002 09:42 AM
To: "Zehler, Peter" <PZehler at crt.xerox.com>, Harry
Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com>,
sm at pwg.org
cc:
Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes
I think I prefer the more "operations" or structurally-oriented approach.
The model of having multiple attributes that describe the same "feature" in
multiple states (capabilities, intent, process, logging/audit), etc. seems
fragile and error-prone (hence the current "process" vs. "product"
discrepancies in CIP4 ...). I'd rather have us define the feature once, and
then define operations or structures that apply the workflow stage
semantics.
bt
-----Original Message-----
From: Zehler, Peter [mailto:PZehler at crt.xerox.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:43 AM
To: 'Harry Lewis'; McDonald, Ira
Cc: sm at pwg.org
Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes
Harry,
I like the concept. I prefer "actual" to "chosen". Have you considered new
operations (e.g. "GetActualJobAttributes" "GetJobsHistory") to accomplish
the same thing. It would make Printers that implement a job receipt more
explicit. There would be no need for all the new attributes (i.e.
"ZZZ-actual"). On the other hand using attributes instead of new operations
does have the benefit of being able to retrieve both the requested and
actual attributes together and having a static representation that
differentiates the two. Perhaps using both the "actual" attributes and new
operations might be more explicit.
Of course there will probably need to be some housekeeping attributes added
to the printer for history management/configuration. I would prefer that
something like this be documented separately and referenced in the PWG
Semantic Model. The document would probably be an extension to IPP.
Pete
Peter Zehler
XEROX
Xerox Architecture Center
Email: PZehler at crt.xerox.com
Voice: (585) 265-8755
FAX: (585) 265-8871
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 128-30E
Webster NY, 14580-9701
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:57 PM
To: McDonald, Ira
Cc: sm at pwg.org
Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes
I'm fine with "chosen" vs. "actual"... not as concerned about the name as
the concept. In this case, actual might differ from requested due to
something like a PDL override (so "chosen" seems to fit) or it COULD differ
due to some circumstance (like the job was aborted prior to all copies
completing) in which case "actual" seems more apropos.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com>
10/02/2002 07:30 PM
To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, sm at pwg.org
cc:
Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes
Hi Harry,
For what it's worth...
Printer MIB used (from DPA I think...) the terminology of
'Declared' or 'Requested' (for the input) and 'Chosen'
(for what you're calling 'Actual' below).
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:56 PM
To: sm at pwg.org
Subject: SM> Job "Actual" attributes
In IPP, PWG Semantic Model and PSI we have Job Template attributes with
"sister" (supported, default and ready) Printer Description attributes. When
discussing the purpose of a "Job Ticket" in the semantic model, we often
refer to Job Template attributes as the "job ticket" as these carry
production intent. By definition, when queried, Job Template attributes must
return the value associated with each attribute during submission. Thus,
there is no way to query a job (or document) and learn WHAT ACTUALLY
HAPPENED w.r.t. any particular attributed (ex. copies). This is covered by
the JDF job ticket but we have said JDF is too workflow oriented for
(initial) inclusion into the PWG Semantic Model.
I would like to propose a solution - the addition of a group of Job
Description attributes referred to as "-actual". These could be extensions
to the group of Job Progress attributes or a separate grouping of Job Actual
(or "Job Completion") attributes. I know, in IPP proper, we don't have the
notion of job "history" (the job "disappears" as soon as it has completed)
so "actuals" would not be very useful. But in the semantic model and PSI
we're trying to overcome this. To the extent that we are reluctant to
embrace a full fledged job ticket, the addition of "-actual" attributes
should go a long way toward providing much of the essential JT functionality
that was previously missing for non-produciton environments.
For example:
+===================+======================+
| Job Template |Job Description:Actual|
| Attribute | Value Attribute |
+===================+======================+
| copies | copies-actual |
| (integer (1:MAX)) | (integer (1:MAX)) |
+-------------------+----------------------+
| finishings | finishings-actual |
|(1setOf type2 enum)|(1setOf type2 enum) |
+-------------------+----------------------+
| sides | sides-actual |
| (type2 keyword) | (type2 keyword) |
+-------------------+----------------------+
| number-up | number-up-actual |
| (integer (1:MAX)) | (integer (1:MAX)) |
+-------------------+----------------------+
| orientation- |orientation-requested-|
| requested | actual |
| (type2 enum) | (type2 enum) |
+-------------------+----------------------+
| media | media-actual |
| (type3 keyword | | (type3 keyword | |
| name) | name) |
+-------------------+----------------------+
| printer-resolution| printer-resolution- |
| (resolution) | actual |
| | (resolution) |
+-------------------+----------------------+
| print-quality | print-quality-actual |
| (type2 enum) | (type2 enum) |
+-------------------+----------------------+
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------