UPD Mail Archive: UPD> data type separation

UPD Mail Archive: UPD> data type separation

UPD> data type separation

From: NorbertSchade@oaktech.com
Date: Wed Jul 17 2002 - 16:05:39 EDT

  • Next message: Norbert Schade: "UPD> UPDF web site update"

    I attach the current version of our current data types schema.
    If I understand your vision properly, this should exactly demonstrate the
    separation of attribute structures and the overall implementation - in our
    case the UPDF device description schemas.
    Depending on how close we'll come eventually, I could imagine taht we even
    include a Semantic Model data type schema within the UPDF data type schema
    and take the duplicates out of our current version.
    But I don't want to be too optimistic, before I see a clear path of the
    Semantic Model.
    And there could be some other significant requirements specific to a UPDF
    device description.
    (See attached file: UPDF Data Types.xsd)

                        "Harry Lewis"
                        <harryl@us.ib To: "TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)" <robert_b_taylor@hp.com>
                        m.com> cc: Norbert Schade <norbertschade@attbi.com>, Print Services group <ps@pwg.org>, UPD group
                        Sent by: <upd@pwg.org>
                        owner-upd@pwg Subject: UPD> RE: PS> Semantic model: media handling
                        11:34 AM

    I like Bob's analysis. I think the Semantic Model will be most useful
    taking this approach.
    Harry Lewis
    IBM Printing Systems

       "TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)"
       <robert_b_taylor@hp.com> To: Norbert Schade
       Sent by: owner-ps@pwg.org <norbertschade@attbi.com>, Print
                                       Services group <ps@pwg.org>
                                               cc: UPD group
       07/16/2002 09:13 PM <upd@pwg.org>
                                               Subject: 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.



    Bob Taylor
    Senior Architect
    IPG Strategic Technology Development
    Hewlett-Packard Co.
    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,
    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


    Norbert Schade
    69 Prescott Drive
    North Chelmsford, MA 01863

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 17 2002 - 16:06:04 EDT