From: William A Wagner (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Feb 05 2009 - 22:24:08 EST
Ira, Pete and the MFD group,
I very much wanted to get out a first cut Overall MFD document prior to the
face-to-face. It has been a very useful exercise for me, and I think my
understanding of what was intended is improving, although there are still
some dark spots. Note that it was my intent to provide a general context for
the Service models and, in doing so, to clarify a few areas. It was not my
intent to modify or embellish the model as manifest by the Scan Spec and the
In continuing to work on the "overall" document (rigorous or not), and
assenting to Ira's idea of a MFD entity other than a service that starts a
service, is not this entity identified as the "Server", since the Scan Spec
says "the multifunction device is represented as the Server element in the
PWG Semantic Model Schema"?
Further, if I understand Ira's suggestion on the startup sequence, it goes:
a. A client sends a StartupService to a System (perhaps implicitly
by powering up the MFD)
b. The System internally creates a scan service in an offline
c. The Service, internally and on its own accord transitions to an
offline phase/down state (but is unable to respond to state requests since
it of off-line...Perhaps the System can respond to a state request? Does the
System respond to the StartupService now, perhaps saying that state is
c. The System internally sends a StartupScanService to the Service,
which causes the Service to move to Online/Idle) Is this the point that the
System responds to the StartupService request, or is it dependent on how
long it takes the service get to an on-line state?
I would be interested in the sense of the working group in what we are
attempting to show with the model. If my tendency to "black box"
characterization is correct, that is, we do not get into internal
implementation aspects beyond what is necessary to characterize behavior,
then the items of interest are just StartupService and the response to
StartupService. The rest is implementation dependent.
Regardless, it would seem that the StartupService [type=XService] is a
System (or Server) input request since the Service is non-existent at this
point. StartupXService would seem to be a System (or Server) output request
sent internally since the Service is in an off-line phase.
Clarification on what how the group would like to deal with these interfaces
would be helpful.
From: Ira McDonald [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:44 AM
To: William A Wagner; Ira McDonald
Subject: Re: MFD> Scan Service Sectionr 10
There is a need for considerable rigor in some top MFD
document, because it needs to be able to be *normatively* referenced
for state diagrams,
basic state tables, operation lifecycle, etc. by future Fax Service,
Copy, Email, etc.
This Chapter 10 model stuff from Scan Service belongs in that document.
If what you wish to write is truly informal, then someone else needs
to write the above
PWG Best Practices document - or we keep repeating term definitions (awful)
the model in each service. There was a strong consensus against
repetition in the
December PWG meeting MFD sessions, I thought.
How about if we do briefly describe the System object in Scan Service
(as the top
management entity in an MFD). Then we say that a System object processes an
incoming StartupService (type=ScanService) request by creating and executing
instance of ScanService (in an implementation-dependent manner), which
in Offline / Unknown and transitions to (during initialization) to
Offline / Down.
Then the System sends a StartupScanService operation to the ScanService to
actually self-test, advertise, and move to Online / Idle. The
operation completes more or less immediately (within seconds) and
completes testing and advertising subsequently. Otherwise,
may be pending for minutes. Worse the original StartupService would be
all that time. This is why IPP System Admin operations (and DPA) MUST
after validating input parameters, local resources, and (possibly) a
lookups, and IPP printer-state-reasons record that the activity is
Anyway, some more thoughts.
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 10:45 PM, William A Wagner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> I am sorry, I am not following you at all.
> I made no suggestion that the state tables be deleted. Indeed, insofar as
> the state of the Service affects the response to interfaces/operation
> requests, I agree that the states and the actions effecting transitions be
> clearly stated.
> I made no objection to maintaining that StartupScanService goes to the
> System to initiate a Scan Service instantiation; I do maintain that, if
> is the path, it should be identified as such and System should be defined
> the document.
> Since Down is in the Offline phase, I find it confusing that a Service in
> the Down state would accept SOAP requests.
> There currently are no references to ISO 10175. To the extent that
> information in that document is applicable, I have no problem to referring
> to it. I do have a problem in assuming the reader has full familiarity
> contents of that document to the extent that terms do not need to be
> in the Scan Service document, indeed not even by reference.
> Including a DeleteService (directed to a system) is nice for a
> model, but it is not in the current ScanService document, nor would I
> a DeleteService request to be an operation in a typical implementation. It
> is not clear that much would be gained by explicitly adding it to the
> ScanService document, although it might be useful for other services,
> particularly if you have a system where there may be multiple
> of a given service. I would leave that for general discussion.
> Finally, my comments on the Scan Service Theory of Operation were intended
> to address areas that I found confusing and areas that appeared
> with other parts of the document. I took such issues to be a result of not
> updating the chapter as the rest of the document matured. It was not my
> intent to change or embellish the model.
> I see the "General MFD Service" document as a less rigorous overview,
> dealing with general concepts applicable to models of multiple Services
> with how the various Services fit within a Multifunction Device.
> some of these issues will come up when we discuss my first draft (which I
> had better get cracking on).
> Bill Wagner
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ira McDonald [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:32 PM
> To: William A Wagner; Ira McDonald
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: MFD> Scan Service Sectionr 10
> Hi Bill,
> I hope you're not suggesting we delete the state
> We could certainly *bend* the operations (e.g., to let
> StartupScanService be an operation received by a
> ScanService in Initial / Down state).
> But in the real world of WSDL bindings, that won't work!
> A service can only receive an incoming WSDL (SOAP)
> request when it's ALREADY instantiated, addressable,
> and at least Down.
> I believe that our MFD Model should have a first-class
> System object that receives StartupService (with a param
> for what type of service) and DeleteService (to really
> remove a Down service instance).
> I do NOT see the problem with references to ISO 10175
> Part 1 (Printing Ops) and Part 3 (Admin Ops). This is the
> underpinning of most all IPP attributes and operations and
> therefore of the PWG Semantic Model v1.0 itself.
> - Ira
> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
> email: email@example.com
> 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
> PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 1:31 PM, William A Wagner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Sorry, I am not following you. What I was attempting, in what little way
>> can, is to have the Scan Service document at least consistent within
>> If my attempt has been unsuccessful, I will most willingly drop the
>> suggested changes.
>> I agree that it is good to also have the document consistent with related
>> documents; but one cannot assume that readers are all familiar with the
>> various other documents that you reference, at least not to the extent
>> terms and concepts in those documents are common knowledge and need not
>> defined (at least by reference.. but that can get cumbersome)
>> The term "System" as a formal object is not defined in the Scan Service
>> document. The word system is appears to be used in a general sense,
>> perhaps this is just my interpretation. Indeed, I wonder if these uses of
>> the word, although they may be derived from other definitive
>> make sense.
>> 1831 Pending - the job has been accepted by the system and is
>> awaiting system resources before it can start processing
>> 2276 Aborted - The Document has been aborted by the system, ...
>> Neither does the Scan Service document use the term Startup Event (except
>> cryptically in the State table) although it does use Startup() in the
>> Diagram and define StartupScanService as an (optional) operation. (How is
>> the service "created" if there is no Startup operation?)
>> I find your explanation that "Startup *event* (not operation) arrives at
>> Service object in Initial phase / Unknown state..." confusing considering
>> your statement that it is the "StartupScanService operation... sent to a
>> System (NOT a ScanService) that creates a new instance of a ScanService
>> the Initial phase..." If StartupScanService creates a service, how can
>> Startup *event* arrive at the Service...unless of course the Startup
>> is a secondary result of the Startup operation, occurring after the
>> operation has already created the service. Or perhaps the Startup event
>> completely independent from the Startup operation?
>> But I really question whether all this is germane. I think it is
>> for the specification define the external interfaces and how the service
>> system) responds to them. I think it desirable that the specification not
>> self inconsistent or unnecessarily confusing. I think that attempts to
>> define the internal implementation beyond what is necessary to
>> black-box behaiour are unnecessary, will usually be ignored, and may
>> the document to be ignored. This of course is just my opinion.
>> Bill Wagner
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ira McDonald [mailto:email@example.com]
>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 10:51 AM
>> To: William A Wagner; Ira McDonald
>> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> Subject: Re: MFD> Scan Service Sectionr 10
>> Hi Bill,
>> The System object is defined in WIMS and also in SM/2.0 schema
>> and has been for years.
>> Miracle happens is bad design - so MFD services that are created
>> AFTER the device is installed MUST be based on operations that
>> are targeted to the System object (same semantics as a Server
>> object in ISO 10175-Part3).
>> My Note (1) says that Startup *event* (not operation) arrives at the
>> Service object in Initial phase / Unknown state, which exactly follows
>> the state transition tables and notes in ISO 10175-Part3.
>> The alternative is to break with DPA and show that a Service object
>> comes into existence in the Initial phase / Down state (and receives
>> the Startup event). But that transition from Unknown to Down is the
>> one (in DPA) that does the one-time initialization of data structures.
>> - Ira
>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
>> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
>> Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
>> email: email@example.com
>> 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
>> PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:39 AM, William A Wagner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>> 1. Yes, you had made the point before that StartupScanService was sent
>>> (undefined?) system, not to the service that is being started. However,
>>> detailed state diagram (Fig 27) indicates that "Startup" takes the
>>> from Down to Idle. There is no indication of what takes service from
>>> to Down. From a practical state, I questioned the Unknown to Down state
>>> transition prior to going to Idle. To address StartupScanService,
>>> line 5 should read: "On creation by a StartupScanService request, the
>>> Service enters its Initial phase..."? Would acceptable wording on Line
>>> be: "After successful initialization, the Scan enters the Online
>>> Pete's 22 Jan version includes RestartScanService so I expect that that
>>> should be mentioned.
>>> 2. I understand your distinction, but the detailed state diagram shows
>>> pause() and C.Critial effect the transition to Stopped. How about if we
>>> it simple here in the text and just say "...either a Critical event
>>> generated" and avoid getting into the specific notation of the detailed
>>> state discussion?
>>> Bill Wagner
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Ira
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 10:28 PM
>>> To: William A Wagner; Ira McDonald
>>> Cc: email@example.com
>>> Subject: Re: MFD> Scan Service Sectionr 10
>>> Hi Bill and Pete.
>>> Bill - I like all of your new text.
>>> However, there are two serious problems in existing text:
>>> (1) Second paragraph at line line 5 of page 2 is just wrong
>>> It is a StartupScanService operation (spelled that way) sent
>>> to a System (NOT a ScanService) that creates a new instance
>>> of a ScanService in the Initial phase, causes self-test, and finally
>>> transition to Online phase / Idle state. The ScanService itself
>>> does NOT perform a start-up operation (line 7). It is handling
>>> the single E.startup *event* sent to it by the System (while in
>>> in the Initial phase / Unknown state).
>>> If we keep it, a RestartScanService operation could be sent
>>> to a ScanService (to recover from a Shutdown to Offline
>>> phase / Down state). See the notes on lines 1628 to 1639
>>> on pages 66 and 67 of lcrc-mfdscanmodel10-20090119.pdf
>>> (2) Recurring problem of reading the terms in state tables
>>> The notation key in the Scan Service spec for the state table
>>> is at line 1618 page 66 in lcrc-mfdscanmodel10-20090119.pdf
>>> For example at line 12 in page 2 of your draft, we see:
>>> "...either a C.Critical event is generated"
>>> The expression "C.Critical" means a *passive* Condition (C)
>>> (i.e., a ScanService.StateReasons value) is TRUE that a Critical
>>> alert is now pending. While, the expression "~C.Critical" means
>>> that any NOT (~) Critical Condition is now pending.
>>> The expression "E.Critical" means that an *active* Event (E)
>>> that is Critical has just occurred. Conversely "~E.Critical" means
>>> that any non-Critical (i.e., warning) event has just occurred.
>>> So "C.Critical event" is confused.
>>> - Ira
>>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
>>> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
>>> Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
>>> email: firstname.lastname@example.org
>>> 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
>>> PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:26 PM, William A Wagner
>>>> Considering the decisions at yesterday's conference call with respect
>>>> "submitting a job", I modified the proposed rework of Section 10 of the
>>>> Service document. This rework (only in markup) is posted as
>>>> Bill Wagner
>>>> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Zehler,
>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:38 PM
>>>> To: email@example.com
>>>> Subject: MFD> Update to Agenda for MFD Teleconference, Thursday 1/29
>>>> There will be an MFD conference call at 3:00 PM EDT (12:00 PM PDT) this
>>>> Thursday. The meeting is held in accord with the PWG Intellectual
>>>> Note the NEW Teleconference number and access code are now used.
>>>> Please contact me if you do not have the new number and pass code.
>>>> 1. Identify Minute Taker
>>>> 2. Approval of minutes from last teleconference
>>>> 3. Agenda bashing
>>>> 4. Discuss syntax of JobPhoneNumber on line 2182 of Scan specification
>>>> 5. Discuss open ended REQUIREMENT governed by a third party (End User)
>>>> policy on line 2788-2790 of Scan specification
>>>> 6. Discuss Bill's comments on in Resource Service
>>>> b) Discussion of Testing State, transition in and out, and method
>>>> transition Part of both Resource and Scan Service discussion)
>>>> 7. Discussion on Scan Service State and proposed change to section 10
>>>> a) Chose between the existing text, proposed text or arrive at
>>>> other consensus.
>>>> Existing text is section 10
>>>> Proposed change is available at
>>>> 8. Discuss any comments on the Resource Service interim draft.
>>>> to move to the Last Call version for review at the Face to Face.
>>>> 9. Next steps
>>>> Click Here to Join Live Meeting
>>>> Peter Zehler
>>>> Xerox Research Center Webster
>>>> Email: Peter.Zehler@Xerox.com
>>>> Voice: (585) 265-8755
>>>> FAX: (585) 265-7441
>>>> US Mail: Peter Zehler
>>>> Xerox Corp.
>>>> 800 Phillips Rd.
>>>> M/S 128-25E
>>>> Webster NY, 14580-9701
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Feb 05 2009 - 22:25:37 EST