Ira, thank you very much for all this hard work. Also, I think Ira's
capture and feedback more than suffice as minutes to the 10/1/2003 (today)
WBMM phone conference. Please view these as such.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
----------------------------------------------
"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com>
Sent by: owner-wbmm at pwg.org
10/01/2003 08:37 PM
To
"'wbmm at pwg.org'" <wbmm at pwg.org>
cc
Subject
WBMM> Feedback and replies on Schedule schema
Hi folks, Wednesday (1 October 2003)
The latest prototype of the Schedule schema is v0.20, available at:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wbmm/schemas/schedule-20030930.xsd
Some feedback from review of Schedule schema at today's WBMM telecon and
my tentative replies, for discussion at next Monday's WBMM face-to-face:
(1) Why did I start with the IETF Schedule MIB v2 (RFC 3231)?
- because it contained almost all of the elements that we have ever
proposed for content of a schedule in our WBMM discussions
- Bill Wagner and Harry Lewis generally agreed at today's telecon
(although they weren't familiar with the Schedule MIB)
(2) Why is 'SchedEntry' (row in a 'Schedule') a flat sequence, without
typical PWG SM-style groups of elements in containers?
- oops - because I didn't think of the container groups
- I suggest a possible grouping later in this note
(3) Why are 'SchedDescription' and 'SchedState' bound to a single row,
rather than being attributes of 'Schedule' (funny naming)?
- oops - because I followed the SNMP-style naming
- I suggest renaming 'SchedEntry' to 'ActionItem'
- I suggest renaming the contained elements from 'SchedXxx...' to
'ActionXxx...' or simply 'Xxx...' ('Operation' for example)
(4) Why aren't there some top-level elements of 'Schedule', besides
the list of 'ActionItem'?
- oops - because they weren't in the MIB and I didn't think of them
- I suggest 'ScheduleDescription', 'ScheduleSourceURI', etc.
(5) Why don't we have an XML container definition for each separate
operation that can be scheduled in an 'ActionItem', with the unique
operation parameter signature explicitly defined?
- oops - because it takes a lot of XML schema code
- WSDL can't be used because these operations don't free-stand
- I suggest I explore separate operations for the Schedule schema
(6) I suggest a revised Schedule model:
(a) 'Schedule' contains
- top-level elements ('ScheduleDescription', etc.)
- 'ScheduleActionItems' (container of action items)
(b) 'ActionItem' contains:
- 'ActionStatus' (state, reasons, counters, etc.)
- 'ActionDescription' (index, description, etc.)
- 'ActionOperation' (container for 'Operation')
- 'ActionCalendar' (period or calendar for action triggers)
(c) 'Operation' contains:
- 'OperationName' (type of operation)
- 'OperationParameters' (container of XML or key/type/values)
- 'OperationTargetURIs' (container of target services/devices)
- 'OperationTargetObject' (name or URI of single target object)
- 'OperationTargetElements' (container of target elements)
<or>
(c) 'Operation' contains:
- a sequence of all possible separate operations, functioning as
a 'switch()' statement to specify _one_ operation at a time
- I prefer this model, it's just a lot of XML code
Comments?
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
High North Inc
PS - I will see email rarely, if at all, until next Monday morning.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/wims/attachments/20031001/e67adf79/attachment-0001.html