SM> Semantic Model (JobX) teleconference

SM> Semantic Model (JobX) teleconference

Zehler, Peter PZehler at
Wed Jul 2 11:15:38 EDT 2003


Thursday July 10th at 1pm EDT is the Semantic Model teleconference. This 
week's Teleconference will be dedicated to IPP JobX.  The document is 
available on the PWG server at
(If someone could convert this to PDF I would appreciate it.  I haven't
found my copy of distiller to put on my new system yet.)

The teleconference is 2 hours long.  It will be run using phone and Webex.
Anyone that does not yet have Webex installed should do that before
Thursday.  Information for the phone and Webex are included below.  NOTE:
New Dial in number and passcode

The agenda for the Semantic Model teleconference is:
1) Discuss the print-quality issue (see included notes below)
2) Discuss the document-xxx-supplied changes in JobX
3) Discuss the output-device resolution


PS: Bob let me know if there is a problem hosting Webex.


Dial in Info:
Phone Number:(877) 707-6056
(Phone Number for Xerox Employees: 8*594-0077)
webex info:
We will also use an on line tool called webex,
if you have not used this before, setup up by
following the First Time Users instructions.
Do this in advance of the meeting.

For fully interactive meetings, including the ability
to present your documents and applications, a one-time
setup takes less than 10 minutes. Click this URL to set up now: <> 

Then click New User.

On Thursday use: <> 

Then click join unlisted meeting.
Use the info below:

Topic: PWG Semantic Model 
Date: Thursday, July 10, 2003 
Time: 10:00 am, Pacific Daylight Time (GMT -07:00, San Jose) 
Meeting number: 21366675 
Meeting password: pwg_sm1! 
Bob Taylor (HP)


				Peter Zehler
				Xerox Innovation Group
				Email: PZehler at
				Voice:    (585) 265-8755
				FAX:      (585) 422-7961
				US Mail: Peter Zehler
				        Xerox Corp.
				        800 Phillips Rd.
				        M/S 128-25E
				        Webster NY, 14580-9701

Print Quality Issue:

Last Tuesday during the PWG/FSG meeting in Portland we had a discussion
about the IPP print-quality attribute and FSG's desire to add two new
values, "economy" and "fine", where "economy" is lower than "draft" and
"fine" is higher than "high". After some discussion we all pretty much
decided that it is not possible to add these new values to the already
existing "draft", "normal", and "high" values because of the current
definitions of the existing values (high is defined as the highest quality
and draft is defined as the lowest quality). It also seemed like what FSG
wanted was a way to specify print optimization and not additional levels of
print quality.

The FSG working group met today, and based on the input from last Tuesday's
meeting, we would like to propose the addition of a new attribute, called
print-optimize, that is defined as follows:

   print-optimize (type2 keyword)

      This attribute refines the value specified by the print-quality

      The standard keyword values are:

         'image': optimize for image clarity
         'photo': optimize for photo clarity
         'text': optimize for text clarity
         'text-and-image': optimize for both text and image clarity
         'save-toner': optimize for minimal toner usage
         'speed': optimize for printing speed

We would appreciate your feedback on this proposal including suggestions for
additional values.

If this proposal looks good, we would like to propose that it be included in
the JobX Spec. If the print-optimize attribute is approved by PWG by the end
of August, then we can propose that it be added to the JDF 1.2 Spec that is
being finalized in early September.

Thank you for your time and feedback.
Claudia Alimpich
IBM Printing Systems Division
Boulder CO
alimpich at

Response to Print Quality Issue:

I understand the desire to avoid violating the semantics of the IPP
attribute - but adding these enumerations to print-quality does not feel as
objectionable to me as splitting a single semantic concept into two
different attributes.  If this is the precedent we take for extending the
semantic model, I'm worried that we'll end up with an increasingly confusing
and complex.  I would rather we take the minor hit and fix the high & draft
definitions in the semantic model than create another ~equivalent attribute
with a whole bunch of special semantic rules (e.g. - what should the service
do if print-quality=high and print-optimize=save-toner?).


Bob Taylor                                        
Senior Architect                            
IPG Strategic Technology Development  
Hewlett-Packard Co.       
mailto:bobt at <mailto:bobt at>                         
phone: 360.212.2625/T212.2625                    
fax: 208.730-5111                 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Sm mailing list