Printer Services Mail Archive: PS> Comments on the PWG Seman

PS> Comments on the PWG Semantic Model document version 0.06, dated J une 17, 2002

From: Hastings, Tom N (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Date: Thu Jun 20 2002 - 19:37:02 EDT

  • Next message: Ocke, Kirk J: "PS> NEW reference.xsd and targetDevice.xsd"

    Here are my comments on the document. Unfortunately, I won't be able to be
    at either the PSI or the PWG meeting to discuss. Have a good meeting.

    1. The WG should consider whether the 10-page summary of the attributes in
    section 2.3 (pages 14 through 23) should be moved back to the appendix where
    the summary of the actions is. Then section 2 will be reduced from 18 pages
    to 9 pages (pages 6-14) on the Data Class attributes. The figures in
    section 2 give the names of the attributes and how they are grouped which
    gives the reader a good overview of the attribute and object part of the
    model. With such a move, section 3 Actions and 4 status codes combined will
    be roughly the same size at 6 pages (pages 24-29) as section 2 (9 pages).
    This was Melinda Grant's suggestion which was put into version 0.2, 5/23/02.

    2. The use of the term "Content" instead of "Document" in attribute and
    object names seems a step backwards and will lead to confusion with the
    existing standards that have already incorporated IPP semantics into them,
    such as IPP, UPnPv1, Bluetooth, and the OMG Print Facility, and the
    implementations of these standards. Also ISO DPA used the term Document.
    The PWG will look silly progressing a Semantic Model that covers a lot of
    existing and future practice, if we change the commonly used terminology.

    If the reason for the change is to allow other types of electronic
    representation to be submitted in a print job, such as fonts, forms, logos,
    etc., we can add a "DocumentType" attribute which indicates the type as:
    'printable', 'font', 'form', 'logo', etc. This is what ISO DPA did.

    3. Page 9, section 2.2, Page 12, section 2.2.2 Figure 8, and page 15,
    section 2.3.2 Job Attribute:
    The Job attributes that a client supplies the values for should not be
    grouped with the Job attributes that the Printer alone sets. The latter
    could be called Job Description attributes, as in IPP and the former called
    just Job Attributes.

    More comments later.

    Tom

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Zehler, Peter [mailto:PZehler@crt.xerox.com]
    Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 11:29
    To: 'BERKEMA,ALAN C (HP-Roseville,ex1)'; ps@pwg.org; pwg@pwg.org
    Subject: PS> PWG semantic model document version for PWG meeting

    All,

    I have uploaded the version of the PWG Semantic Model document to be used at
    the PWG meeting next week. I have taken Allen's version and put back the
    semantics for Actions but limited it to a high level description. Detailed
    discussion of parameters remain in a section dedicated to an IPP mapping of
    the print semantics. I have also done some other minor edits.

    We will use the PDF version, which has line numbers, in our conversations.

    The PDF version is available at
    "ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/Semantic_model/PWG-Semantic-Mode-06-020617.pdf"
    MS Word version is available at
    "ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/Semantic_model/PWG-Semantic-Mode-06-020617.doc"

    Pete
                                    Peter Zehler
                                    XEROX
                                    Xerox Architecture Center
                                    Email: PZehler@crt.xerox.com
                                    Voice: (716) 265-8755
                                    FAX: (716) 265-8871
                                    US Mail: Peter Zehler
                                                    Xerox Corp.
                                                    800 Phillips Rd.
                                                    M/S 128-30E
                                                    Webster NY, 14580-9701

    -----Original Message-----
    From: BERKEMA,ALAN C (HP-Roseville,ex1) [mailto:alan_berkema@hp.com]
    Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 5:31 PM
    To: ps@pwg.org; pwg@pwg.org
    Subject: PS> Another view of the PWG semantic model

    Here is another cut at the PWG Semantic Model
     
     <ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/Semantic_model/PWG-Semantic-Model1161402.doc>
    ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/Semantic_model/PWG-Semantic-Model1161402.doc
     
    It started with Peter's and attempts to provides a more
    generic model with the IPP specifics in the Appendix.
    It also groups the collections of attributes differently.
     
    regards,
    Alan
     



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 19:37:13 EDT