Peter,
Some thoughts:
1) In IPP, I was thinking it would be best if the "-actual" attributes are
simply "normal" Job Description attributes. Then they can be queried in
the same way, and follow the same conventions, as any other Job Description
attributes.
In the Semantic Model, you are proposing that they should instead be a new
group: that seems to make sense in the Semantic Model. However, I think I
would have preferred, at least initially, that the JobProcessingActual
elements *act* the same as the JobDescription elements, and the
DocumentProcessingActual elements act the same as the DocumentDescription
elements. In that case, JobProcessingActual would go under Job and
DocumentProcessingActual would go under Document.
2) If we *did* go with your idea, what is the advantage to putting
"JobProcessingActual" and "DocumentProcessingActual" under a
"ProcessingActual" entry, rather than just putting them directly under Job?
Dennis
"Zehler, Peter"
<PZehler@crt.xero To: Dennis Carney/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "PWG Semantic Model WG (E-mail)" <sm@pwg.org>, "IPP
x.com> Discussion List (E-mail)" <IPP@pwg.org>
Sent by: cc:
owner-ipp@pwg.org Subject: IPP> "-actual" containment issue
10/25/02 04:49 AM
Dennis,
Attached is a diagram showing how the "-actual" objects could be
structured.
It puts the "ProcessingActual" elements in the Job. The "ProcessingActual"
contains "JobProcessingActual" and a multivalued
"DocumentProcessingActual".
"ProcessingActual" identifies its Printer and Job. Since there can be
multiple Documents, the "DocumentProcessingActual" identifies its
associated
Document.
Since the Job is the active entity is it appropriate to carry the Job
"Receipt"(i.e. "-actual") information there?
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: Dennis Carney [mailto:dcarney@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 12:09 PM
To: Zehler, Peter
Subject: Re: IPP> RE: "-actual" containment issue
Peter,
Sounds good.
Dennis
"Zehler, Peter"
<PZehler@crt.xero To: "Zehler, Peter"
<PZehler@crt.xerox.com>, Dennis Carney/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "'ipp@pwg.org'"
x.com> <ipp@pwg.org>,
"'sm@pwg.org'" <sm@pwg.org>
Sent by: cc:
owner-ipp@pwg.org Subject: IPP> RE: "-actual"
containment issue
10/24/02 09:02 AM
Dennis,
I believe that new groups should be created for "-actual" just as there are
groups for "supported" and "default". The "DocumentProcessingActual" group
should exist in both the Job and Document. The "JobProcessingActual"
should
exist only in the Job. This would parallel the processing elements nicely.
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
#### job-actual.png has been removed from this note on October 25 2002 by
Dennis Carney
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 10:38:25 EDT