WIMS> Updated Counter Spec - 21 March Conferenec Call

WIMS> Updated Counter Spec - 21 March Conferenec Call

WIMS> Updated Counter Spec - 21 March Conferenec Call

wamwagner at comcast.net wamwagner at comcast.net
Fri Mar 18 12:14:53 EST 2005


Greetings:

I have uploaded an updated Counter spec to:

ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/wd/wd-wimscount10-20050318.pdf and 
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/wd/wimscount10-20050318.doc
 and markup versions to 
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/wd/wd-wimscount10-20050318rev.doc and ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/wd/wd-wimscount10-20050318rev.pdf

We intend to review this on Monday, 21 March, at 12 noon EST. 
Dial-up info 
     Dial In: 1-866-365-4406 
    Toll #: 1-303-248-9655 
    Passcode: 2635888#Dial-up info 
     
Changes, Comments and Questions on update follow:
 
“Multifunction device” has been replaced with “Imaging System”, with references to Multifunction Device as an example.
“Copier”, where used as a service identifier has been changed to “Copy”
“Service Totals” have generally be changed to “System Totals”
Figure 4, Counters Elements needs addition of dashed “unknown” circle in work counter group. This will be done properly when finalized.
Section 4 uses the term “Product” extensively. This term should either be defined or replaced. The term “Imaging System” may be a proper replacement.
The definition “Job” counters  in section 4 seems unclear, maintaining that Job.xxx  refers to all xxx generated or processed by the product, including datastream, auxiliary, maintenance, waste, and “unknown”.  That is, “job” is an aggregate of the “classes” of work done. This is fudged by the inclusion of the virtual work class “unknown”, which prevents Job.xxx from being considered derivable by summing.  
TotalTime, being defined as “up” time, which includes “down” time, seems confusing, especially when concatenated into SystemTotals.Availability.TotalTime. I am suggesting “OnTime” as the parameter.
OnTime, Down time. Maintenance time, Processing time, etc. Are these persistent counts? Do/should we discuss this?
In section 4, I put InputMessages and OutputMessages in the Jobs group. One could argue that there may be maintenance messages, but not auxiliary, waste etc. I opted not to include Maintenance messages.
In section 5, I question whether there is any reasonable significance to SystemTotalsInputMessages and SystemTotalsOutputMessages, and have not included them.
 Should Section 6, Relationships, also include relationships of SystemTotals.Monitoring counters? For example, SystemTotals.Monitoring.LocalStorageKOctets. In many cases, the SystemTotals make more sense to actual implementations than by-Service counts.
Section 8 (PWG and IANA Considerations) is still blank. I see no IANA impact but, of course, extensive effect upon the PWG semantic model, which this document significantly extends. Since the entire document is relates to the PWG semantic model, it is unclear what is appropriate to put in Section 8. 
Section 10 (Security Considerations) are still blank. I am inclined to say that security applies to the accessibility and communication of the elements described in this document, rather than the definition and derivation of the elements themselves, and as such need not be discussed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/wims/attachments/20050318/ee4b4d07/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Wims mailing list