Semantic Model Mail Archive: RE: SM> Keyword Extension ISSUE

Semantic Model Mail Archive: RE: SM> Keyword Extension ISSUE

RE: SM> Keyword Extension ISSUE 1

From: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) (robert_b_taylor@hp.com)
Date: Thu Sep 26 2002 - 16:41:59 EDT

  • Next message: Zehler, Peter: "RE: SM> Keyword Extension ISSUE 1"

    I'd add:

    C) Allow system entities to use standard XML tools and the PWG (and
    potentially other) schemas to determine that a request is well formed
    D) Facilitate development around the PWG semantic model by creating
    schema structures that expose both objects and values through commonly used
    development tools

    As for B), I'd say the semantic model certainly needs to enable capabilities
    to be ascertained, but I'm not honestly sure whether it's in scope for the
    SM project to "completely" solve this. It may be sufficient here just to
    declare the objects & values in such a way that they can be readily used by
    capabilities schemes, and that the "full" capabilities problem will be
    solved in forums like PSI & UPDF.

    bt

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Zehler, Peter [mailto:PZehler@crt.xerox.com]
    > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 5:50 AM
    > To: PWG Semantic Model WG (E-mail)
    > Subject: SM> Keyword Extension ISSUE 1
    >
    >
    > All,
    >
    > As stated in the previous mail note "CORRECTED Keyword
    > Extension Mechanism
    > for schema" sent earlier, I would like to resolve ISSUE 1.
    >
    > ISSUE 1: What requirements do we have to help us close on a solution?
    >
    > It seems to me that the primary objectives are to
    > A) Insure that the schema for the print model is easily
    > extended. For both vendors and sites. The extensions should
    > be allowed at
    > both the object and semantic element value levels.
    > B) Enable print client developers to ascertain the
    > capabilities
    > of a print device at runtime.
    >
    > I think I heard a requirement that a client be able to
    > determine that a
    > request is well formed, in the PWG schema sense, using XML
    > tools and the PWG
    > schema. Am I hearing that requirement correctly?
    >
    > What do you think the requirements are for selecting a
    > solution for schema
    > extensibility?
    >
    > Pete
    >
    >
    > Peter Zehler
    > XEROX
    > Xerox Architecture Center
    > Email: PZehler@crt.xerox.com
    > Voice: (585) 265-8755
    > FAX: (585) 265-8871
    > US Mail: Peter Zehler
    > Xerox Corp.
    > 800 Phillips Rd.
    > M/S 128-30E
    > Webster NY, 14580-9701
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 26 2002 - 16:42:16 EDT