SM> Job "Actual" attributes

SM> Job "Actual" attributes

SM> Job "Actual" attributes

Harry Lewis harryl at us.ibm.com
Fri Oct 4 00:26:27 EDT 2002


Ira, you are absolutely right about the prolific output of the 
"non-group". My concern is... with so much work emanating... SHOULD we be 
meeting at the f2f!? It seems these topics have been discussed mostly in 
the SM or Plenary sessions. 

I think the use of attributes for "-actual" (or -chosen if that's what we 
decide) was accepted in today's SM conference call. Dennis and I will be 
working on a PWG draft. In my opinion. if we go so far as to add 
operations than the operation should facilitate a full job-ticket/receipt 
like JDF or whatever else we come up with in that regard. 
---------------------------------------------- 
Harry Lewis 
IBM Printing Systems 
---------------------------------------------- 




"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com>
Sent by: owner-sm at pwg.org
10/03/2002 08:55 PM
 
        To:     Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, "TAYLOR,BOB 
(HP-Vancouver,ex1)" <robert_b_taylor at hp.com>
        cc:     "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com>, "Zehler, Peter" 
<PZehler at crt.xerox.com>, sm at pwg.org
        Subject:        RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes

 

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 
---------------------------------------------- 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/sm/attachments/20021003/c1914c05/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Sm mailing list