I also agree with all of Bill's points. Except that I'd want to see
of concrete PWG-specific other protocols besides IPP that PWG SM
schema should encompass.
Basing the PWG SM XML schema on non-PWG specs is a black hole
with respect to update and accuracy of the non-PWG specs.
The sole exception is the *existing* one of the IETF MIBs (Printer MIB,
Finisher MIB, Job MIB, MIB-II, and Host Resources MIB) that are *already*
in PWG Subunits and Job schema files.
I much prefer to remove *all* editors for non-approved projects, and to
remove *all* on-hold or potential projects from this charter.
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094
Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 2:01 PM, <wamwagner at comcast.net> wrote:
> Paul, thank you for generating this draft.
>> 1. I agree with the points that Ira and Michael have made. Although
> I am not strongly opposed to Paul’s version, and Michael’s is not what I
> would prefer it to be, Michael’s does reflect what appears to be the
> consensus of the PWG (by default, since I did not hear any strong
> opposition to the notion that the model is to reflect only IPP) But perhaps
> this should be discussed more.
>> 2. I suggest that the semantic model task not only be put first,
> but that the task definition include maintaining a web browsable version.
> Wording is it bit rough too.
>> 3. I see no reason to list document editors, especially for
> documents that no longer exist as chartered projects. At any rate, I would
> want my name removed.
>> 4. I object to listing on-hold projects and I object to listing
> potential projects.
>> 5. Unless you wish to define the maintenance of the semantic model
> project as relating to SM3, I object to any mention of SM3 in the
> Objectives. At any rate, objectives 1,2, 4 and 5 should be removed.
>> Bill Wagner
>>>>> *From: *Ira McDonald
> *Sent: *Monday, August 24, 2015 1:24 PM
> *To: *Semantic Model 3.0 Workgroup discussion list;Ira McDonald
> *Subject: *Re: [SM3] New SM3 Draft Charter Uploaded to PWG FTP Site
>>>> I agree with all of Mike's comments.
>>>> I like Mike's revised problem statement.
>>>> I'm opposed to any mention at all of 3D when the 3D work is strictly BOF
>> in PWG and has not become a work item in IPP WG (and is unlikely to
>> do so in this calendar year, IMHO).
>> - Ira
>>>>>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
>> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
>> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
>> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
>> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
>> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
>> Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
>>http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>> mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com>> Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094
>> Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
>>>> > Paul,
>> > > On Aug 23, 2015, at 9:56 PM, Paul Tykodi <ptykodi at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi,
>> > > Per an action item from the last F2F, a new SM3 draft charter has been
>> > uploaded to the PWG FTP site.
>> > 1. The problem statement should probably be re-written based on the
>> > current focus, e.g.:
>> > "The Semantic Model workgroup is responsible for maintaining the PWG
>> > Semantic Model and defining new mappings and abstract models as needed to
>> > support interoperability and data exchange between Imaging Systems. The
>> > PWG Semantic Model is an abstract version of the Internet Printing
>> > model and semantics which enables interoperability and data exchange with
>> > other protocols and XML schema."
>> > 2. The schema maintenance should probably be the first work item, since
>> > is the primary ongoing task.
>> > 3. Drop PPDMAP. Please. It is not an "on hold" specification, we've
>> > agreed to drop it several times already and I am not available to be an
>> > editor for it.
>> > 4. I'm not sure the 3D stuff needs to be there; if we end up moving
>> > forward with an IPP version of the specification, the semantic model work
>> > would be schema maintenance.
>> > _________________________________________________________
>> > Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > sm3 mailing list
>> > sm3 at pwg.org>> > https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/sm3>> >
>> sm3 mailing list
>>sm3 at pwg.org>>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/sm3>>>>>