WBMM> Re: Need quick decisions on schema changes

WBMM> Re: Need quick decisions on schema changes

WBMM> Re: Need quick decisions on schema changes

Wagner,William WWagner at NetSilicon.com
Thu Jun 3 02:07:50 EDT 2004

I agree with Harry and Pete on most things, and I will admit to not following how your argument below applies  to their objections (nor, indeed, many of your other undoubtedly logical relationships)
Although having everything follow a grand scheme is desirable, the effect appears to introduce so much interdependency that everything requires that everything else be done, thereby defeating the ability to complete anything. Since PSI deals only with printers but needs alerts  done, why can it define just printer alerts (and perhaps general alerts)? Alerts for WIMS would be the combination of printer alerts, scanner alerts, fax alerts, resource alerts etc, as these become defined. Dropping the register for alerts capability because the only alerts we can currently support are printer related seems undesirable.
With respect to  "Does WIMS WG accept the need to model Resource?",  it is unclear to  me what other group  would do this. Although I would not put this on high priority, I would prefer not to loose Resource.  Again, since we may not at this time fully understand all the aspects of Resource,  can we not work with a skeleton model, filling it out later?
I  understand the notion that the current semantic model is only for printers, and that elements belonging to  a non-printer part of an MFP  need to be in some other part of the semantic model. As such, forcing them into WIMS at this time may upset the future logical model if it cannot be remove from WIMS in favor of a reference to a more general semantic model at a later time.
Indeed, the compromise forcing these cuts was in response to the understanding that we needed your skeleton imaging device model  filled out before we could use it, and that it was unclear when (and if) that would be done. But it seems that we need some interim way of handling references, realizing that they may change in  detail and completeness.
Anyway, it would seem that, insofar as the schema are informational adjuncts to the spec, the changes you identify must also be reflected in the spec. I would, however, like to wait until the smoke clears before making those changes.
Thanks for your continuing efforts.
Bill Wagner

 -----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald at sharplabs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 4:20 PM
To: 'Zehler, Peter'; McDonald, Ira
Cc: 'wbmm at pwg.org'; Wagner,William
Subject: RE: WBMM> Re: Need quick decisions on schema changes

For PSI to advance, the Events spec (psievents10) and the Events
schema MUST be formally approved for addition to the next version
of the Semantic Model.
Because there is no such thing as a Resource or a _Subscription_
defined in any standards-track IETF or PWG approved spec,
there CANNOT be any Resource operations or events in WIMS.
And more cogently, there CANNOT be any Subscription object
defined in the Alert schema (so there is no source for the element
bindings of most Alert types).  So RegisterForAlerts doesn't work.
This just gets worse...
The PWG Semantic Model element PrinterOperationsSupported
ONLY contains the base IPP/1.1 operations.  There is no obvious
way that it could easily be extended to cover all PSI operations,
WIMS operations, etc.
And arguably, the PWG SM/1.0 Printer object should NOT be
the source of any WIMS connection.  The abstract System or
Service object in front of Printer should start WIMS connections.
Near-term the WIMS Agent should NOT be conflated with Printer.
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: Zehler, Peter [mailto:PZehler at crt.xerox.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 2:36 PM
To: McDonald, Ira
Cc: 'wbmm at pwg.org'; 'Wagner,William'
Subject: RE: WBMM> Re: Need quick decisions on schema changes


Harry covered my views.  My inserts are only on 7 & 8.


Peter Zehler 
Xerox Innovation Group 
Email: PZehler at crt.xerox.com 
Voice:    (585) 265-8755 
FAX:      (585) 422-7961 
US Mail: Peter Zehler
              Xerox Corp. 
              800 Phillips Rd. 
              M/S 128-25E 
              Webster NY, 14580-9701 


-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 1:57 PM
To: McDonald, Ira
Cc: 'wbmm at pwg.org'; 'Wagner,William'
Subject: WBMM> Re: Need quick decisions on schema changes


Harry Lewis 
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
IBM Printing Systems 

"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com> 

06/02/2004 11:47 AM 


"'wbmm at pwg.org'" <wbmm at pwg.org> 


"'Wagner,William'" <WWagner at NetSilicon.com>, Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS 


Need quick decisions on schema changes





PLEASE answer quickly with your opinions on edits below, 
so I can begin the edits needed in all of the WIMS schema 
after last week's PWG Vancouver meetings. 

Last week, we reduced the scope of the PWG Std Events spec 
and Events schema to Printer-only (Printer, Job, Document, 
and Subunit).  Fine, but... 

(1) Alerts schema - Should I delete 'AlertResource'? 

    - it depended on the now _deleted_ ResourceXxx events 
     in the Events schema and Resource object in the 
     (abandoned) Imaging System Model draft 

HL - Yes, for now... but we need to put these back in later 

(2) Alerts schema - Should I change 'NotifySourceState' 
   to delete 'Testing' and 'Down' from 'hrDeviceStatus' 
   in Host Resources MIB (RFC 2790)? 

    - this change will make support of coherent Printer 
     state harder to harmonize with HR MIB 
   - I think that it's a bug that Printer state in IPP/1.1 
     requires state reasons to report Down or Testing 

HL - No 

(3) Alerts schema - Should I rename 'NotifySourceState' 
   to 'NotifyPrinterState' and 'NotifySourceURI' to 

    - doing so effectively closes the future possibility 
     of multifunction alert support in WIMS 

HL - No! 

(4) Resource schema - Should we abandon this schema? 

    - last week's meeting seemed against adding any 
     new objects except in some future PWG MFP Model 
   - abandoning Resources seems foolish to me 

 HL -   Seems foolish to me too. Don't like the word abandon. Prefer "staging" 

(5) Schedule schema - Should I reorganize it into 
   the three Monitoring, Management, and Admin groups 
   of Actions? 

    - this seems worthwhile, as it describes WIMS levels 

HL - Yes 

(6) Schedule schema - Should I delete Resource actions? 

    - Does WIMS WG accept the need to model Resource? 

HL - No (Yes... but possibly at a later "stage") 

(7) Schedule schema - Should I import 'NotifyEvents' from 
   the Events schema? 
   - this looks better, but again loses Resources 

HL - Not sure... why does this loose Resources... because event schema requirments are being driven by PSI? Seems incorrect. 

            <PZ>I don't understand this one either</PZ>

(8) Schedule schema - Should I add the elements for 
   Supported[Operations|Actions|Objects] here, so 
   that RegisterForManagement operation works? 

    - the WIMS operations won't appear in any generic 
     PWG Semantic Model element in the forseeable future 

HL - why do you say the WIMS ops won't appear in SM? Do you mean just the admin related Ops?

            <PZ>This would seem to be a straight forward extension and could be added to the Schema easily, captured as a Semantic Model extension and picked up in the next version of the PWG Semantic Model spec</PZ>


- Ira 

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) 
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc 
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839 
phone: +1-906-494-2434 
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/wims/attachments/20040603/3b29bd5e/attachment.html

More information about the Wims mailing list