Semantic Model Mail Archive: RE: SM> Job "Actual"

Semantic Model Mail Archive: RE: SM> Job "Actual"

RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes

From: Hastings, Tom N (
Date: Thu Oct 10 2002 - 19:38:16 EDT

  • Next message: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1): "RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes"

    I like Bob Taylor's idea of using the same PWG Semantic Model Job and
    Document Processing attributes (probably not PWG SM Description attributes)
    in a different context to indicate what really happened, rather than
    inventing more xxx-actual attributes. The PWG Semantic Model already uses
    this approach for Job Creation, in that Document Processing attributes can
    be supplied at the Job Level in the Create-Job operation and in each
    Send-Document operation. The IPP Document object extension proposes
    re-using the same IPP Job Template attributes as Document Template
    attributes, rather than inventing new "document-xxx" Document Template
    attributes. (Also the IPP "document-overrides" and "page-overrides"
    collection attributes re-use the existing Job Template attributes for each
    override collection value, rather than inventing new name mangling for
    However, I'd also like to suggest a streamlining, by having the new Job
    Processing Actuals be only the ones that deferred from the ones submitted in
    the Job Creation Request. This would do two good things: Be much more
    compact and provide a useful indication to the user about what happened
    differently from what he requested. I suspect that any defaulting that the
    Printer supplied would wind up in the Actuals group, but be of the form
    "xxx", not "xxx-default". If the PDL had a different value and the Printer
    didn't override the PDL, then the actual should be the value from the PDL.
    Of course, the Job Processing, Job Description, Document Processing, and
    Document Description attributes that the user submitted should also be in
    the Job History in just the form that he submitted (as in the current IPP
    Job History for Job Template attributes and soon to be Document Template
    attributes - see RFC 2911 section
    The FSG Job Ticket API wants to store results in the Job Ticket eventually
    as well.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Harry Lewis []
    Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 09:37
    To: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)
    Cc: McDonald, Ira; Zehler, Peter;
    Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes

    I'm not opposed to new operations but I'll observe that multiple attributes
    is in keeping with the way IPP is currently structured.
    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems

            "TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)" <>

    10/03/2002 09:42 AM

            To: "Zehler, Peter" <>, Harry
    Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "McDonald, Ira" <>,
            Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes


    I think I prefer the more "operations" or structurally-oriented approach.
    The model of having multiple attributes that describe the same "feature" in
    multiple states (capabilities, intent, process, logging/audit), etc. seems
    fragile and error-prone (hence the current "process" vs. "product"
    discrepancies in CIP4 ...). I'd rather have us define the feature once, and
    then define operations or structures that apply the workflow stage
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Zehler, Peter []
    Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:43 AM
    To: 'Harry Lewis'; McDonald, Ira
    Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes

    I like the concept. I prefer "actual" to "chosen". Have you considered new
    operations (e.g. "GetActualJobAttributes" "GetJobsHistory") to accomplish
    the same thing. It would make Printers that implement a job receipt more
    explicit. There would be no need for all the new attributes (i.e.
    "ZZZ-actual"). On the other hand using attributes instead of new operations
    does have the benefit of being able to retrieve both the requested and
    actual attributes together and having a static representation that
    differentiates the two. Perhaps using both the "actual" attributes and new
    operations might be more explicit.
    Of course there will probably need to be some housekeeping attributes added
    to the printer for history management/configuration. I would prefer that
    something like this be documented separately and referenced in the PWG
    Semantic Model. The document would probably be an extension to IPP.

    Peter Zehler
    Xerox Architecture Center
    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

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Harry Lewis []
    Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:57 PM
    To: McDonald, Ira
    Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes

    I'm fine with "chosen" vs. "actual"... not as concerned about the name as
    the concept. In this case, actual might differ from requested due to
    something like a PDL override (so "chosen" seems to fit) or it COULD differ
    due to some circumstance (like the job was aborted prior to all copies
    completing) in which case "actual" seems more apropos.
    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems

            "McDonald, Ira" <>

    10/02/2002 07:30 PM

           To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS,
           Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes


    Hi Harry,

    For what it's worth...

    Printer MIB used (from DPA I think...) the terminology of
    'Declared' or 'Requested' (for the input) and 'Chosen'
    (for what you're calling 'Actual' below).

    - Ira McDonald

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Harry Lewis []
    Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:56 PM
    Subject: SM> Job "Actual" attributes

    In IPP, PWG Semantic Model and PSI we have Job Template attributes with
    "sister" (supported, default and ready) Printer Description attributes. When
    discussing the purpose of a "Job Ticket" in the semantic model, we often
    refer to Job Template attributes as the "job ticket" as these carry
    production intent. By definition, when queried, Job Template attributes must
    return the value associated with each attribute during submission. Thus,
    there is no way to query a job (or document) and learn WHAT ACTUALLY
    HAPPENED w.r.t. any particular attributed (ex. copies). This is covered by
    the JDF job ticket but we have said JDF is too workflow oriented for
    (initial) inclusion into the PWG Semantic Model.

    I would like to propose a solution - the addition of a group of Job
    Description attributes referred to as "-actual". These could be extensions
    to the group of Job Progress attributes or a separate grouping of Job Actual
    (or "Job Completion") attributes. I know, in IPP proper, we don't have the
    notion of job "history" (the job "disappears" as soon as it has completed)
    so "actuals" would not be very useful. But in the semantic model and PSI
    we're trying to overcome this. To the extent that we are reluctant to
    embrace a full fledged job ticket, the addition of "-actual" attributes
    should go a long way toward providing much of the essential JT functionality
    that was previously missing for non-produciton environments.

    For example:

    | Job Template |Job Description:Actual|
    | Attribute | Value Attribute |
    | copies | copies-actual |
    | (integer (1:MAX)) | (integer (1:MAX)) |
    | finishings | finishings-actual |
    |(1setOf type2 enum)|(1setOf type2 enum) |
    | sides | sides-actual |
    | (type2 keyword) | (type2 keyword) |
    | number-up | number-up-actual |
    | (integer (1:MAX)) | (integer (1:MAX)) |
    | orientation- |orientation-requested-|
    | requested | actual |
    | (type2 enum) | (type2 enum) |
    | media | media-actual |
    | (type3 keyword | | (type3 keyword | |
    | name) | name) |
    | printer-resolution| printer-resolution- |
    | (resolution) | actual |
    | | (resolution) |
    | print-quality | print-quality-actual |
    | (type2 enum) | (type2 enum) |

    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 10 2002 - 19:39:29 EDT