Semantic Model Mail Archive: SM> RE: IPP> "-actual&q

Semantic Model Mail Archive: SM> RE: IPP> "-actual&q

SM> RE: IPP> "-actual" containment issue

From: Zehler, Peter (PZehler@crt.xerox.com)
Date: Mon Oct 28 2002 - 09:50:22 EST

  • Next message: Zehler, Peter: "SM> RE: IPP> "-actual" multivalue types issue"

    Dennis,
    My comments below.
    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: Friday, October 25, 2002 10:33 AM
    To: Zehler, Peter
    Cc: IPP Discussion List (E-mail); PWG Semantic Model WG (E-mail)
    Subject: Re: IPP> "-actual" containment issue

    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.
    <PZ> I would think that we would want to allocate a new group tag for the
    encoding as well as defining a new attribute group tag for requesting these
    new attributes. Putting them all into a group simplifies the processing
    since the entire unsupported group is ignored.<PZ/>

    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.
    <PZ> I don't see the downside of supporting a new group of attributes in
    IPP as a proper attribute group. New implementations support the group
    while old implementation ignore the entire group. It allows access to
    individual members as well as the entire group.<PZ/>

    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?
    <PZ> The main advantage I see is that the whole job history would stand
    on its own. Defined this way it would be possible to deal with "-actual"
    data whether it came from a request on a Job object or through a separate
    Job History interface offered by the Printer. <PZ/>

    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 : Mon Oct 28 2002 - 09:50:47 EST