attachment-0001

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 ---------------------------------------------- <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td> <td>"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> Sent by: owner-sm@pwg.org 10/03/2002 08:55 PM <td>                To:        Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)" <robert_b_taylor@hp.com>         cc:        "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, "Zehler, Peter" <PZehler@crt.xerox.com>, sm@pwg.org         Subject:        RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes        </table> <tt>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@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:37 PM To: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) Cc: McDonald, Ira; Zehler, Peter; sm@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@hp.com> 10/03/2002 09:42 AM                To:        "Zehler, Peter" <PZehler@crt.xerox.com>, Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, sm@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@crt.xerox.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:43 AM To: 'Harry Lewis'; McDonald, Ira Cc: sm@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@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@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:57 PM To: McDonald, Ira Cc: sm@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@sharplabs.com> 10/02/2002 07:30 PM               To:        Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, sm@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@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:56 PM To: sm@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 ---------------------------------------------- </tt>