Semantic Model Mail Archive: SM> ACT - Summary of today's di

Semantic Model Mail Archive: SM> ACT - Summary of today's di

SM> ACT - Summary of today's discussion of the "-actual" proposal

From: Dennis Carney (dcarney@us.ibm.com)
Date: Thu Oct 31 2002 - 18:34:17 EST

  • Next message: Dennis Carney: "RE: SM> ACT - IPP "-actual" attributes downloaded, version 0.1 [m y comments]"

    Today in the Semantic Model teleconference, the 'IPP: "-actuals" attributes
    extension' was discussed for the first time. Here is a summary of that
    discussion, or at least a summary of the conclusions.

    1) There seemed to be general agreement that this proposal was a step in
    the right direction.
    2) The discussion first veered into how the "-actual" attributes would fit
    into the Semantic Model schemas. I would feel more comfortable with Peter
    Zehler reporting the conclusion, but essentially I believe the conclusion
    was that Peter's proposal for a ProcessingActual group was accepted.
    Within the scope of SM, then, the "-actual" attributes do not need the "
    -actual" suffix, since they are distinguished by XML schema structure from
    the corresponding Job Processing attributes.
    3) We discussed whether the "-actual" attributes should be Job Description
    attributes or whether they should be part of a new attribute group,
    something like the Job Actual attributes. It was decided they should be
    Job Description attributes.
    4) However, a new keyword for the "-actual" attributes needs to be added to
    the possible keywords for the "requested-attributes" operation attribute
    that is part of the Get-Jobs and Get-Jobs-Attributes operations. That is,
    a client would be able to do a Get-Job-Attributes and ask for only the "
    -actual" attributes by providing one single keyword, the new 'job-actual'
    keyword.
    5) A question was raised as to the intended use case this proposal was
    written for. I said it was anybody trying to monitor jobs, whether they
    were the job submitter or not. A question came up as to whether this could
    be used for billing: "the job used 13 pages of letter paper, so charge them
    $.26". I said this proposal was not detailed enough to handle complicated
    billing issues (job printed some transparencies, some letterhead, some
    staples, and so on), and it was mentioned I should add some comments to
    this effect to the document.
    6) We had a good discussion about whether the "-actual" attributes should
    be multi-valued. For more details on this, I will point you to Tom
    Hastings' email from a few hours ago, entitled 'SM> ACT - ISSUE:
    multi-valued at job level vs. using "document-overrides-actual" and
    "page-overrides-actual"'. The gist: some thought yes, some thought no, Tom
    has three ISSUEs in his email.
    7) There was a discussion of whether the operation attribute
    "document-format" should have a corresponding "document-format-actual"
    attribute. This would be an exception to the rule that "-actual"
    attributes correspond only to Job Template attributes. It was decided that
    there would NOT be a corresponding "-actual" attribute for this, but that
    the Document Object spec would possibly address the flawed situation with
    the "document-format" attribute and possibly create the equivalent of an
    "actual" attribute for it.
    8) It was pointed out that the "job-k-octets", "job-impressions", and
    "job-media-sheets" attributes are already-existing "pseudo-actual"
    attributes, in that these values can be provided by the client on job
    creation, and can be overridden by the printer if it determines the
    client-provided values are inaccurate. It was suggested to add a mention
    of these three attributes in the "-actual" attributes document.
    8a) There was some confusion (in my mind at least!) whether the document
    should also mention "document-format" as an example of a "pseudo-actual"
    attribute--it is confusing because at present, "document-format" *doesn't*
    act this way, so it is hard to add a mention that it does. Maybe if the
    Document Object spec makes it act this way, I can then add a mention of
    that? Or maybe the request was that I mention "document-format" as an
    example of an attribute that could/should be a "pseudo-actual", but isn't?
    Or?
    9) There was an high-level issue that arose frequently: whether the "
    -actual"s concept should be extended to the Document Object, and if so,
    how. I said I thought it should be extended and I didn't sense any
    opposition, but this issue was never really discussed sufficiently, I don't
    believe, to claim there was a conclusion.

    The discussion was continuing as we ran out of time, so it will be
    continued at the face-to-face next week, in one-half of the afternoon of
    the Semantic Model time-slot (thanks Peter!). I will try in the next few
    days to publish a list of ISSUEs as a result of the discussion today.

    For those that were part of the discussion, if I have misrepresented or
    forgotten anything, please post!

    Dennis



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 18:35:43 EST