Hi,
I also REALLY LIKE the "Solutions" word, because it encompasses
bindings and profiles of other protocols not even developed by the
PWG, but applicable to Imaging Systems - it's better for collaboration
with DMTF and other organizations, I think.
FWIW - I also think Systems (but NOT Services) is much better than
Semantics (which are only PART of the elements and not really the
managed elements themselves).
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
email: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
winter:
579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
734-944-0094
summer:
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Harry Lewis <harryl at us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Bill... I'm OK with "Systems" and I REALLY LIKE "Solutions".
>> Regards,
> Harry
>> Harry Lewis
> Program Manager - Intellectual Property & Open Standards
> Phone: 303-924-5337
> e-mail: harryl at us.ibm.com> infoprint.com
>>> P Think before you print
>>>> "William A Wagner" <wamwagner at comcast.net>
> Sent by: owner-wims at pwg.org> 01/06/2009 01:11 PM
>> To
> <wims at pwg.org>
> cc
>> Subject
> RE: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?
>>>>>>> Craig and Harry,
>> OK. You find ?semantics? too limiting and too tied in with the more
> general Semantic Model activities.
>> But it is unlikely that we will define with management systems or
> management services.
>> How about ?Workgroup for Imaging Management Solutions? ? That certainly is
> general enough to cover anything we are likely to address and non-specific
> enough so that anything we do address satisfies the term.
>> Comments?
>> Thanks,
>> Bill Wagner
>> From: owner-wims at pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Whittle,
> Craig
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:51 AM
> To: Harry Lewis; William A Wagner
> Cc: wims at pwg.org> Subject: RE: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?
>> Bill:
>> I also like the broader term ?Services? or ?Systems? especially since
> ?Semantics? might collide with the PWG semantic model (more narrow)
> activities.
>> Best regards,
>> **CW
>> From: owner-wims at pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Harry
> Lewis
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 9:13 PM
> To: William A Wagner
> Cc: wims at pwg.org> Subject: RE: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?
>>> Bill, thanks.
>> I certainly understand that WIMS is not developing a service per se, and
> is not likely to, given our past. I just offer that we frequently find
> ourselves looking back at the name we have chosen and prescribe a lot of
> meaning, especially limitation (eg? I see no harm in keeping the original
> definition of WIMS and allowing the scope and charter to over (under?)
> reach the name).
>> So, if we changing the meaning of WIMS (which I am not opposed to), why
> restrict to ?semantic? when ?service? is a broader concept to which the
> semantics we are defining will ultimately apply. In my opinion, this would
> allow more leeway for future reshaping w/o name consternation.
> Alas? far too many words likely already spoken (typed) on the topic? so
> I?m OK with either final consensus or w/g Chair conclusion. Which ever
> name we choose, the same great work will ensue... I'm sure!
>> Harry Lewis
> Program Manager - Intellectual Property & Open Standards
> Phone: 303-924-5337
> e-mail: harryl at us.ibm.com> infoprint.com
>>> P Think before you print
>>> "William A Wagner" <wamwagner at comcast.net>
> 01/05/2009 06:58 PM
>>> To
> Harry Lewis/US/InfoPrint/IDE at IBMUS> cc
> <wims at pwg.org>
> Subject
> RE: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?
>>>>>>>>>> Harry,
>> Although the original WIMS project was the development of a service
> (although we never did complete the binding) , I think we got the message
> that the world was not going to accept an imaging specific standard
> management protocol. (?Disappointing since vendors appear convinced that
> it will accept imaging manufacturer specific protocols.) In focusing on
> WS-Man and then on CIM as the path to WS-Management, we recognized that
> our best contribution was in identifying the imaging device/service
> management elements to be used within a standard management service
> (although what this service may still not be awfully clear). We also
> recognized, not only that SNMP was going to be around for a while, but
> that new management elements will need to be accessible via SNMP. So, on
> one hand, new and updated imaging management elements must be available in
> MIB form if they are to be accessible in most environments; on the other
> hand, they must be compatible with the Web Services paradigm that we
> expect will emerge. Indeed, Peter has said that Xerox will not support the
> generation of a MIB, but presumably would support the definition of
> objects characterizing the state, capabilities and configuration of some
> aspect if an imaging service or device.
>> In the CIM effort, WIMS has been translating the appropriate management
> elements defined in MIBs to CIM MOFs. In the updated charter, I suggest
> that we will not only continue to do this, but go further to translate
> management elements from other structures (e.g., IPP) as well as to define
> new elements (power management). Having identified such elements, WIMS
> must consider the bindings, if nothing else, then just to be able to
> verify the validity of these elements. (As we learned with the Counter
> Spec, abstract defined elements, unimplemented and unbound to a usable
> transport , may have some severe problems.) So it is expected that we will
> deal with MIB as well as CIM bindings, (and perhaps others). But the
> essence of the work will be in identifying the elements that allow
> effective management of the imaging service and devices (with probably a
> stress on devices).
>> There is some overlap with the MFD semantics effort, largely because Ira?s
> original WIMS semantics were included. But the MFD effort is largely
> concerned with the semantics of the services performing their functions
> rather than the monitoring, configuration and maintenance of the services
> and the devices executing the services. Eventually the management
> semantics that we develop may be incorporated into the overall Semantic
> Model. But in the meantime, hopefully, these elements will have been
> defined, bound to standard protocols , and demonstrated to provided
> effective management of imaging services and devices.
>> Hope this makes our intent clearer,
>> Thanks,
>> Bill Wagner
>> From: owner-wims at pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Harry
> Lewis
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 7:27 PM
> To: William A Wagner
> Cc: wims at pwg.org> Subject: RE: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?
>>> Bill, sounds great. Only comment from me... didn't "S" used to stand for
> "Services"? Will we, in the future, risk feeling now that the groups
> efforts are LIMITED to semantics (whereas, semantics can always be viewed
> as supporting services)?
>> Harry Lewis
> Program Manager - Intellectual Property & Open Standards
> Phone: 303-924-5337
> e-mail: harryl at us.ibm.com> infoprint.com
>>> P Think before you print
>> "William A Wagner" <wamwagner at comcast.net>
> Sent by: owner-wims at pwg.org> 01/05/2009 04:01 PM
>>>> To
> <wims at pwg.org>
> cc
>> Subject
> RE: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like "Workgroup for Imaging Management Semantics". Odd that we hadn?t
> thought of ?Work?? before.
>> Any objections?
>> Thanks,
>> Bill Wagner
>> From: owner-wims at pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Dave
> Whitehead
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 4:31 PM
> To: Ira McDonald
> Cc: Ira McDonald; Petrie, Glen; Harry Lewis; owner-wims at pwg.org;
>wims at pwg.org> Subject: Re: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?
>>> How about "Workgroup for Imaging Management Semantics" -- that way we
> don't need to explain the missing "G."
>> dhw
>> David H. Whitehead
> Development Engineer
> Lexmark International, Inc.
> 859.825.4914
> davidatlexmarkdotcom
>> "Ira McDonald" <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>
> Sent by: owner-wims at pwg.org> 01/05/09 04:21 PM
>>>>> To
> "Harry Lewis" <harryl at us.ibm.com>, "Ira McDonald"
> <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>
> cc
> "Petrie, Glen" <glen.petrie at eitc.epson.com>, wims at pwg.org> Subject
> Re: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>> So, "Working Group for Imaging Management Semantics (WIMS)"
>> Bill is quite right that Services is not the correct scope.
>> A precedent is IETF PWG (Printer Working Group, originally
> chartered for RFC 1179 and later for RFC 1759).
>> Cheers,
> - Ira
>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
> email: blueroofmusic at gmail.com> winter:
> 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
> 734-944-0094
> summer:
> PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
> 906-494-2434
>>>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Harry Lewis <harryl at us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>> So that would be "Working group for Imaging Management Services"?
>> (Semantics?) That'd be OK.
>>>> Also, I'd have no problem retiring both PMP and WIMS and migrating into
> ISMS
>> or some other agreeable new name.
>>>> Also, I'd have no problem just keeping WIMS as is and not getting too
>> concerned that everything in the bucket is not "Web based".
>>>> Harry Lewis
>> Program Manager - Intellectual Property & Open Standards
>> Phone: 303-924-5337
>> e-mail: harryl at us.ibm.com>> infoprint.com
>>>>>> P Think before you print
>>>>>> "Petrie, Glen" <glen.petrie at eitc.epson.com>
>> Sent by: owner-wims at pwg.org>>>> 01/05/2009 12:21 PM
>>>> To
>> <wims at pwg.org>
>> cc
>> Subject
>> RE: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?
>>>>>>>>>> I support W as "Working group"
>>>> ________________________________
>> From: owner-wims at pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims at pwg.org] On Behalf Of
>>Richard_Landau at Dell.com>> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:10 AM
>> To: wims at pwg.org>> Subject: WIMS> CIM> What is the W for?
>>>>>> Re: changing the name of the WIMS group to reflect its broader scope
>>>> If the goal is to retain the acronym WIMS, we must construct a suitable
>> backronym. The problem is the W, since the absorbed PMP items are not
>> "Web-based." The current charter draft suggests "Wide-scope."
>>>> A few minutes with a dictionary yielded some other possibilities.
>>>> Interesting but rejected:
>> - Wagner's (practical)
>> - Wonderful (boastful)
>> - Whiz-bang (flippant)
>>>> Possible:
>> - Well-known
>> - Working group for, as in "Working group for Imaging Management
> Semantics."
>>>> So long as the W does not stand for Washington, or for any other meaning
> of
>> "W" recently related to Washington, it's okay.
>>>> Of course, we could always change the name slightly, since lots of
>> interesting words end in MS for Management Semantics. For example,
> Imaging
>> Systems Management Semantics, or ISMS. Has kind of a nice ring to it.
>>>> rick
>>>> ----------------------
>> Richard_Landau(at)dell(dot)com, Stds & System Mgt Architecture, CTO
> Office
>> +1-512-728-9023, One Dell Way, RR5-3, MS RR5-32, Round Rock, TX 78682
>>>