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