WBMM> Re: Need quick decisions on schema changes
PZehler at crt.xerox.com
Wed Jun 2 14:36:24 EDT 2004
Harry covered my views. My inserts are only on 7 & 8.
Xerox Innovation Group
Email: PZehler at crt.xerox.com
Voice: (585) 265-8755
FAX: (585) 422-7961
US Mail: Peter Zehler
800 Phillips Rd.
Webster NY, 14580-9701
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
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
(5) Schedule schema - Should I reorganize it into
the three Monitoring, Management, and Admin groups
- 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 McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Wims