Suggested items for f2f discussion.
Issues relate both to the SM3 specification and the actual semantic model,
either individually or combined. \
1. The schema approach for the operations currently has service type
specific operations. That is, each Service type has a separate set of
operations, labeled with that service type, although most operations are
functionally common to all service types. The MFD Model specification (SM2)
labels the operations with a <service> insert, indicating that the specific
service type is to be inserted. The specific destination service is
identified as an element in each operation, so is the service type needed in
the service name? Should we continue to follow the present approach or :
a. Allow the schema to represent the operations as Service specific
sets, but remove the Service type from the name?
b. Represent all the operations as Imaging Client Operations (and
Local Imaging System Proxy Operations) in the schema and in the
specification, eliminating service type in operation names.
c. Some other generalized grouping of operations (e.g., hardcopy
input, hardcopy output ?) in the schema, eliminating service type in
d. Something else.
2. The current schema uses the same element names for distinctly
different elements. On one level, the terms State, StateMessages,
StateReasons for example are used with respect to the System and each
Service (although the element data types are consistent). On a different
level, the same element names referring to certain capabilities is used
both as a Boolean and as a different data type (e.g, Brightness, Sharpness,
Contrast, Subject, To). The former use is probably benign, but might the
latter cause some confusion?