Printer Services Mail Archive: RE: PS> Semantic model: media

RE: PS> Semantic model: media handling

From: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) (robert_b_taylor@hp.com)
Date: Tue Jul 16 2002 - 23:13:37 EDT

  • Next message: Harry Lewis: "RE: PS> Semantic model: media handling"

    Hi Norbert, all,
     
    One of the things we (HP) have been suggesting for the semantic model is the
    separation of the raw "attribute/element" definitions from the
    structures/model that pull them together for a particular use. As you not,
    UPDF has done this structuring in a different way than IPP - which is also
    somewhat different than UPnP & PSI, etc. I'm not sure we want to try codify
    any one structure as part of the core semantic model - these will tend to
    vary by market segment and domain, and I'm not sure we can do this
    one-size-fits-all. What we would like to see, though, is common definition
    of the
    core "attributes/elements" - this seems much more reusable across models &
    domains. It does make sense, though, to publish some of the "common models"
    as at least examples of structural models - IPP, UPDF, etc. are likely
    candidates for this. This exposes some of useful constructs (such as the
    composite feature you describe below) for reuse.
     
    thanks,
     
    bt
     
    ---------------------------------------------------
    Bob Taylor
    Senior Architect
    IPG Strategic Technology Development
    Hewlett-Packard Co.
    mailto:robertt@vcd.hp.com <mailto:robertt@vcd.hp.com>

    phone: 360.212.2625/T212.2625
    fax: 208.730-5111
    ---------------------------------------------------

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Norbert Schade [mailto:norbertschade@attbi.com]
    Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 7:32 AM
    To: Print Services group
    Cc: UPD group
    Subject: PS> Semantic model: media handling

    I have problems to follow two different ways to specify media handling and
    UPDF would have problems to support that.
    I'm fine with the specification of single media attributes like size, type,
    etc.
    I agree that there should exist a media instance a level higher, which is a
    media element with a number of media attributes.
    The number of attributes can vary. In one sample it may be just size and
    type, in another it may be something like the IPP media collection.
     
    My point is that the attributes a media is described by may vary.
    There should not be a predefined media collection in a common Semantic Model
    representing one implementation.
     
    Feel free to check the composite feature definition we have in UPDF. Open
    the UPDF.xsd schema to do this and follow the path down to
    PrintCapabilities.Features. The current sample description xml of an
    imaginary LJ9000 has a 'Media' composite feature. We can compose any number
    of features to a new feature, be it Media, Quality or anything else. This is
    a very flexible structure and is expected to be used frequently. We got very
    positive feedback once we finished it last year.
     
    We'd appreciate if the Semantic Model does something down that path.
    Otherwise the spec is ambiguous.
     
     
    Another statement:
    We've seen the current schema of the Semantic Model. We know there are a
    number of ways to write schemas. The UPDF group made the experience that
    working with attributes instead of assigning text to elements directly has
    advantages. Validation is easier and we can define constraints (these are
    really constraints and not dependencies) for attributes. You may think that
    over.
     
    Regards
     
    Norbert Schade
    69 Prescott Drive
    North Chelmsford, MA 01863
    978-251-1017
    norbertschade@attbi.com <mailto:norbertschade@attbi.com>



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 16 2002 - 23:13:42 EDT