Semantic Model Mail Archive: RE: SM> Integrate "-actual

Semantic Model Mail Archive: RE: SM> Integrate "-actual

RE: SM> Integrate "-actual" attributes into the document object s pec

From: Hastings, Tom N (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 20:56:07 EDT

  • Next message: Hastings, Tom N: "SM> document-creator-application-version ISSUE: For human or program consumption?"

    Dennis,

    Thanks for the comments.
     
    Briefly:
    1. I agree with you that the Document Template attributes need to be
    clarified that they share the same "xxx-default" and "xxx-supported" Printer
    attributes with the corresponding Job Template attributes.

    2. I agree that we want the spec to extend Document Template attributes to
    have corresponding OPTIONAL "xxx-actual" Document Description attributes.

    3. I agree that we don't want to extend the -actual concept to the Operation
    attributes that have corresponding "xxx-default" and "xxx-supported" Printer
    Description attributes.

    See my detailed replies bracked by <th> and </th> below.

    Tom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Dennis Carney [mailto:dcarney@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 16:16
    To: sm@pwg.org
    Cc: Harry Lewis
    Subject: SM> Integrate "-actual" attributes into the document object
    spec

    In "Appendix A: Change Log" of the IPP "-actual" attributes extension
    (ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_ACT/pwg-ipp-actual-attrs-latest.pdf), is
    the following text:

        Version 0.3, 16 December 2002, as a result of the PWG Semantic Model
    telecon, December 12, 2002:
            1. Removed all references to the document object. Extending this
    concept to the document object will be done
                in the document object specification only. In this way, moving
    this specification forward on the standards
                track will not be held up.

    As far as I can see, the concept of the "-actual" attributes has not been
    extended to the Document object in the latest version of the Document
    Object spec. I assume we still want to do this--is there any feeling
    otherwise among the group?
    <th>
    Yes, I would think we should extend the Document object to have "xxx-actual"
    Job Description attributes.
    </th>

    If we *do* want to do this, how to do it? In fact, I'm not sure in reading
    the spec (maybe I missed it?) that it is ever made clear that Document
    Template attributes have corresponding "xxx-default" and "xxx-supported"
    attributes--is that because all Document Template attributes are also Job
    Template attributes and as such have "xxx-default" and "xxx-supported"
    attributes by definition (from 2911)?
    <th>
    Yes, the spec could be clearer that Document Template attributes are just
    the same as Job Template attributes and share the same "xxx-supported",
    "xxx-default", and "xxx-ready" Document Template Printer attributes with the
    Job Template attributes.
    </th>

    However, the "-actual" attributes are a bit different. For every *Document
    Template* attribute, there would be a corresponding *Document Description*
    "-actual" attribute. This fact cannot, I don't think, be considered to be
    implied by 2911 or by the "-actual" spec (which as shown above does not
    even mention the document object).
    <th>
    Agree, so need to add some statement to the Document Description Attributes
    section about there being corresponding "xxx-actual" Document Description
    attributes for each Document Template attribute.
    </th>

    So:
    ISSUE 1: In chapter 7, OK to add a mention of the extension of the
    "-actual" concept to the Document object?
    <th>
    Yes.
    </th>

    ISSUE 2: In addition, does the way that "xxx-default", "xxx-supported", and
    "xxx-ready" apply to the Document object need to be made more clear?
    <th>
    Yes.
    </th>

    In addition, in Table 7, which lists all the Operation attributes, there
    are columns for "xxx-default" and "xxx-supported". I guess the concept is
    to extend the concept of "xxx-default" and "xxx-supported" to certain
    Operation attributes, instead of simply having those concepts apply to
    Template attributes.
    <th>
    Yes.
    </th>

    ISSUE 3: In this case, would we want to do the same for "-actual"s?
    <th>
    But I don't think that we want to extend these Operation attributes that
    have "xxx-default" and "xxx-supported" to also have "xxx-actual" Document
    Description attributes. The one that we do have is
    "document-format-details-detected", so named since it isn't a -actual, just
    as we have done for the "document-format" operation attribute with
    "document-format-detected".
    </th>

    This is a complicated situation, I believe, since we already have two
    cases:
    1) For job-impressions, job-k-octets, and job-media-sheets, we already have
    the concept that these are copied to Job Description attributes and that
    these three (and *only* these three, I believe) can be updated by the
    printer to contain a "more accurate" (see 2911, section 4.3.17) value than
    was provided. So for these, they are sort-of their own "actual" attribute.
    <th>
    True.
    </th>

    2) For document-format and document-format-version, we have created new
    attributes to essentially be "actual" values: document-format-detected and
    document-format-version-detected. We created the "detected" name to make
    sure it was not confused with the "-actual"s, since the "-actual" concept
    (as written) doesn't extend to Operation attributes.
    <th>
    Yes.
    </th>

    My personal vote is to *not* extend the concept of "-actual"s to Operation
    attributes, but I wanted to bring it up to see what others think. My
    reason for not extending them is to keep the concept "clean"--it only
    applies to Template attributes, not to all Template attributes, plus those
    Operation attributes that have currently been identified as having them.
    Also, extending the concept to Operation attributes conflicts somewhat with
    the situation in #1 above--2911 says that those three *are* some sort of
    "actual"s. If we extend the concept, do we deprecate that behavior? But
    then clients that don't implement the document object will no longer get
    the same "results" from servers that do implement it.
    <th>
    I agree with you that we don't want to extend these Operation attributes
    that have "xxx-default" and "xxx-supported" to also have "xxx-actual"
    Document Description attributes. The one that we do have is
    "document-format-details-detected", so named since it isn't a -actual, just
    as we have done for the "document-format" operation attribute with
    "document-format-detected".
    </th>

    Comments anyone?

    Dennis Carney
    IBM Printing Systems



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 16 2003 - 20:57:17 EDT