Semantic Model Mail Archive: RE: [printing-jobticket] RE: SM&gt

Semantic Model Mail Archive: RE: [printing-jobticket] RE: SM>

RE: [printing-jobticket] RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes

From: Harry Lewis (harryl@us.ibm.com)
Date: Fri Oct 11 2002 - 13:05:00 EDT

  • Next message: McDonald, Ira: "SM> PWG Parameters for MIME types ("document-format" values)"

    Very good comments, Shawn. The ISTO Printer Working Group shares your
    desire to eliminate redundancy in the industry by harmonizing standards
    efforts, where appropriate. This is the main reason we are now formalizing
    a "Common Semantic Model". This effort spawned from the recognition that
    the Java Print API, UPnP Printing and Bluetooth Printing all leveraged
    concepts from IPP but each with somewhat different interpretations. This
    gave us a signal that the MODEL represented by IPP is applicable to a wide
    variety of print environments. The first true instance of a print solution
    based on the PWG Semantic Model will be the Print Services Interface, also
    coming from the PWG. We hope that OpenPrinting will leverage the Semantic
    Model and feel there is quite good harmony between the two... largely
    because of the FSG choice of IPP using CUPS and PAPI.

    Initially, the Common Semantic Model is largely derived from IPP. In our
    efforts to document a working version of the SM we have not taken the time
    to properly address either Job Ticket or Capabilities Object. So far, we
    have consciously postponed these topics while we lay in other parts of the
    framework. We have NOT excluded these concepts and fully expect to address
    them in the future. One of the items the PWG has also been working on is
    the Universal Printer Description Format (UPDF) which may make an
    excellent capabilities object describing not only device capabilities but
    constraints among features as well (can't duplex transparency, for
    example).

    I don't think the FSG has made a bad choice with IPP. To the contrary,
    there has been enough investment in IPP over the past couple years that
    you should get a lot of leverage in terms of shortened development cycles
    and wide product support. I think the PWG Semantic Model can probably
    benefit more than we realize from experience in the OpenPrinting group
    with some of our outstanding issues (JT and Capabilities)... albeit
    perhaps not until v2. PSI is also a good candidate for FSG to leverage if
    you want to address the web services environment. Your initial focus on
    IPP (and it's high correlation with the Semantic Model) should give you a
    head start in this direction.

    As for Scan and Fax, the PWG, like any organization, has had to work
    within our limitations. Our scope is probably in need of expansion in
    these areas. As you have observed, we do have an IPP-FAX group who are
    closing in on a universal image format that will allow fax-like operations
    over IPP. This image format can easily be leveraged by other solutions
    such as PSI.
    ----------------------------------------------
    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems
    ----------------------------------------------

    "PRATT,SHAWN (HP-Boise,ex1)" <shawn_pratt@hp.com>
    10/11/2002 09:27 AM
     
            To: "TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)" <robert_b_taylor@hp.com>,
    "'Hastings, Tom N'" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>, Harry
    Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
            cc: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, "Zehler, Peter"
    <PZehler@crt.xerox.com>, sm@pwg.org, printing-jobticket@freestandards.org
            Subject: RE: [printing-jobticket] RE: SM> Job "Actual"
    attributes

     

    So in reading all of this as well as undertanding the work going on in
    OpenPrinting, I have a general questions that may be obvious to others but
    not to me yet. The assumed communication link for this work has been IPP.
     

    IPP allows for:
                     a) Query printer capabilities,
                     b) Submit print jobs,
                     c) Inquire about the status of print jobs and printers,
                     d) Cancel print jobs.
                     e) Runs on top of HTTP 1.1.

    IPP does not currently allow for:
                     a) Support for scan or fax. There is an active effort
    (PWG-IFX)
              to use IPP for Internet fax, though it's incomplete right now.
                         You could probably fake fax through IPP, but I don't
    know if
              anybody has done it. Scan definitely isn't supported.
                     b) Does not support Job tickets. I know a lot of these
    discussion
              is about determined what to do for IPP to support job tickets.
              We need to determine this in our work as well as see what is
              being done elsewhere.
                     c) The format of printer capabilities is all done with
              independently defined attributes - you query individually by
              attribute. They are vendor extensible, but you need to
              register them through IANA.
                     d) IPP has the concept of an intent ticket, but it is
    not XML
              based, and not easily extensible.
                     e) The model is also primarily enterprise oriented. What
    would
              need to be done to support the consumer space.

    Am I correct in these observations?

    For the Linux standard print model work that the FSG OpenPrinting WG is
    doing, our goals are not to "reinvent the wheel" and not simply patch the
    current solutions. Our objectives are to work with the standards working
    groups that are already working on various parts of the print model puzzle
    to ensure that said standards work well for the Linux environment. In
    order
    to do this correctly, first, we need to define the basic print path and
    the
    components/standards used along that path. Second, we need to identify
    what
    is missing from those components and standards. Finally, we need to be
    working with those owners to make the improvements and/or implementing
    Linux
    specific APIs/components. As well, the OpenPrinting WG is also about
    looking forward. Questions we need to answer are: What is the print
    model
    solution we would like for the future? How can we best provide an
    architecture and solution that:
                     a) Is scalable to allow solution providers (print
    vendors,
              distributors, and even users) ensure a basic print model,
              but also build on it easily to extend the model is the
              direction suited for their business.
                     b) Makes it easy for a print vendor to have a solution
    for
              their product. What I mean here is at a basic print
              model level, the vendor does not have to apply many, if
              any, resourses to supporting their product. They can
              then focus on the extensibility for their products if
              required for their business model needs.
                     c) Is consistent for end-users so they get a consistent
    print
              experience across the different distributions they may be
              using.

    For IPP, I am wondering if we have chosen the correct communication link.
    I
    know this has been the standard used in Linux for sometime, but it seems
    to
    be missing some pretty major parts that we would need. As well, there are
    other standards being developed such as UPnP and PSI that seem to be
    working
    in this same space and seem to be already addressing those needs.

    I am not trying to create headaches for everyone. I just want to make
    sure
    we are looking at all of our options.

    Comments?

    _____________________________
    Shawn Pratt
    Manager
    Client Software for Device Enablement and Usage
    Hewlett-Packard
    11311 Chinden Blvd., MS 235, Boise, ID 83714
    Phone: 208-396-4628
    Email: shawn.pratt@hp.com
    -----Original Message-----
    From: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) [mailto:robert_b_taylor@hp.com]
    Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:55 PM
    To: 'Hastings, Tom N'; Harry Lewis
    Cc: McDonald, Ira; Zehler, Peter; sm@pwg.org;
    printing-jobticket@freestandards.org
    Subject: [printing-jobticket] RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes

    Since Tom brought up the idea of storing results in the job ticket, we've
    been thinking of this as "logging annotations" - i.e., you push these
    "actuals" as logging elements that are added to the ticket as it's
    processed. This would look something like:
    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <ticket>
        <mediaSize>A4 </mediaSize>
        <logging timestamp="10/10/2002 4:50pm PDT" logger=252.15.43.255>
            <mediaSize>US_Letter</mediaSize> <!-- service didn't have A4, so
    it
    substituted US Letter -->
        </logging>
    </ticket>
    With this, you don't have to redefine elements, even if the service
    changed
    them (the "actual" is implied by the <logging/> structure), and you can
    attach other attributes to the log timestamps, logger IDs, etc. You have
    both the original intent and the logging information in the same ticket
    for
    archival/audit/accounting, but it's simple to strip all the logging out
    and
    re-use the ticket if you want to.
    thoughts?
    bt
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com]
    Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 4:38 PM
    To: Harry Lewis; TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)
    Cc: McDonald, Ira; Zehler, Peter; sm@pwg.org;
    printing-jobticket@freestandards.org
    Subject: 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
    them).

    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 4.3.7.2).

    The FSG Job Ticket API wants to store results in the Job Ticket eventually
    as well.

    Comments?

    Tom
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 09:37
    To: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)
    Cc: McDonald, Ira; Zehler, Peter; sm@pwg.org
    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)" <robert_b_taylor@hp.com>
    10/03/2002 09:42 AM
            To: "Zehler, Peter" <PZehler@crt.xerox.com>, Harry
    Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>,
    sm@pwg.org
            cc:
            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
    semantics.
     
    bt
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Zehler, Peter [mailto:PZehler@crt.xerox.com]
    Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:43 AM
    To: 'Harry Lewis'; McDonald, Ira
    Cc: sm@pwg.org
    Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes

    Harry,
     
    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.
     
    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
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:57 PM
    To: McDonald, Ira
    Cc: sm@pwg.org
    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" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>
    10/02/2002 07:30 PM
           To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, sm@pwg.org
           cc:
           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).

    Cheers,
    - Ira McDonald

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:56 PM
    To: sm@pwg.org
    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 : Fri Oct 11 2002 - 13:10:07 EDT