Therein lies the problem (my opinion). When IPP FAX was splintered off as
a separate (from core IPP working group) effort there really hasn't been a
formal PWG IPP WG.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
"Zehler, Peter" <PZehler at crt.xerox.com>
10/03/2002 08:49 AM
To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, "Zehler, Peter"
<PZehler at crt.xerox.com>
cc: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com>, sm at pwg.org
Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes
Harry,
The long slow pipeline is the IETF. A PWG document that details the
concept would be fine. (The Semantic Model document needs to point to the
documents with the bloody details for the semantic elements) I do not
want to delay or sidetrack the Semantic Model schedule. Things like the
document object and your proposal need to be worked in a timely manner. A
slot should be allocated to address these issue and drive them
independently to closure. I am looking to have the first Semantic Model
and update process finalized soon after the January PWG meeting. It
seemed to me that the Document Object and Job Receipt fit well in the PWG
IPP WG. (Let's not worry about the IETF IPP WG) Which begs the question
"What is the status of the PWG IPP WG"?
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: Thursday, October 03, 2002 10:15 AM
To: Zehler, Peter
Cc: McDonald, Ira; sm at pwg.org
Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes
Yes, there is the need for some housekeeping attributes and attribute
values. For example, one problem might be what happens when a printer does
not support "copies" (because they have not implemented PDL override) yet
you still want to access the "copies-actual" attribute.
I think it is appropriate to discuss this in SM because it was a
shortcoming of IPP. SM is attempting to improve on the IPP basis. I don't
feel we are in the mode of extending IPP beyond what is already in the
(long, slow, sticky) pipeline.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
"Zehler, Peter" <PZehler at crt.xerox.com>
10/03/2002 05:43 AM
To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, "McDonald, Ira"
<imcdonald at sharplabs.com>
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
----------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/sm/attachments/20021003/49dea3b5/attachment-0001.html