WBMM> Re: Need quick decisions on schema changes

WBMM> Re: Need quick decisions on schema changes

WBMM> Re: Need quick decisions on schema changes

Harry Lewis harryl at us.ibm.com
Wed Jun 2 13:57:10 EDT 2004


Inserted...
---------------------------------------------- 
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> 
06/02/2004 11:47 AM

To
"'wbmm at pwg.org'" <wbmm at pwg.org>
cc
"'Wagner,William'" <WWagner at NetSilicon.com>, Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS
Subject
Need quick decisions on schema changes






Hi, 
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 
    'NotifyPrinterURI'? 
    - 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 
      better 
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.
(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?
Cheers, 
- 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/20040602/0fcd5bc7/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Wims mailing list