From: McDonald, Ira (imcdonald@sharplabs.com)
Date: Fri Jul 20 2007 - 13:16:05 EDT
Hi,
Converted to PDF and stored at:
HYPERLINK "ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/presentations/07JUL-DMTF-Alliance-Partner-Technical-Symposium.pdf"ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/presentations/07JUL-DMTF-Alliance-Partner-Technical-Symposium.pdf
About mapping services to devices:
(1) IPP/1.1 (RFC 2911) defines the Job attribute
output-device-assigned (name(127))
(2) IPP Job Extensions (PWG 5100.7) defines the Printer (i.e.,
CIM_PrintService) attribute:
output-device-supported (1setOf name(127))
These map cleanly to CIM_Printer (i.e., PrintDevice):
CIM_ManagedSystemElement.Name
So we should define:
(1) CIM_Printer.Name
a refinement of CIM_ManagedSystemElement.Name
- using Override clause to map to sysName in MIB-II and/or
prtGeneralPrinterName in Printer MIB v2
(2) CIM_PrintService.OutputDevicesSupported, a string array
of Name property values for the class CIM_Printer.
(3) CIM_AssociatedPrinter, an association class for a CIM_Printer
(device) with a scoping CIM_PrintService
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wims@pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Richard_Landau@Dell.com
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 5:18 PM
To: Whittle, Craig
Cc: owner-wims@pwg.org; wims@pwg.org; harryl@us.ibm.com
Subject: RE: WIMS> CIM> DMTF Alliance Partner draft presentation
Great, thanks for the feedback. Glad it went well. Yes, I agree that printing will always be the red headed stepchild in almost any computer system oriented group. It's that service that no one cares about until it doesn't work one day and then it's critical.
Regarding services and computer systems, I think that services should be modeled as Services, which is the way PrintService currently is. Services are *hosted* on ComputerSystems, but that's the easy part because someone else has already defined it. The Service itself is not a stand-alone network entity.
Associations to relate devices to services? Almost certainly yes. Data-based relationships, which CIM calls "weak" relationships, simply are not tolerated any more. (Analogy: SNMP = relational database = data-based relationships. CIM = CODASYL database = pointer-based relationships embodied in separate records.) We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
rick
_____
From: Whittle, Craig [mailto:cwhittle@sharplabs.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 16:16
To: Landau, Richard
Cc: owner-wims@pwg.org; wims@pwg.org; harryl@us.ibm.com
Subject: RE: WIMS> CIM> DMTF Alliance Partner draft presentation
Rick, et al.:
The presentation went well. There were several members of "core" that attended. John Crandall had the most comments. Overall the feedback was positive although I still get the feeling that printing / imaging is still the "red headed stepchildren" of DMTF. There only specific comment was about the use of ComputerSystem as a future direction for our printing / imaging classes. John Crandall said that services were better represented under ComputerSystem rather than devices. He did not suggest and alternative place for printing devices. He did suggest using association classes to link devices and services.
Despite the seemingly endless rewrites of our CRs driven by last-minute comments from core, I got the impression from other attendees representing other alliances that our process is going relatively smoothly. I let John Crandall know that.
The latest version of the presentation is posted on HYPERLINK "ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/presentations/07JUL-DMTF-Alliance-Partner-Technical-Symposium.ppt"ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/presentations/07JUL-DMTF-Alliance-Partner-Technical-Symposium.ppt
Best regards,
**CW
_____
From: Richard_Landau@Dell.com [mailto:Richard_Landau@Dell.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:18 PM
To: Whittle, Craig
Cc: owner-wims@pwg.org; wims@pwg.org; harryl@us.ibm.com
Subject: RE: WIMS> CIM> DMTF Alliance Partner draft presentation
Craig, how did it go? Hope it was okay. There was no phone bridge that I could find to call into to serve as a backup, sorry.
rick
_____
From: Whittle, Craig [mailto:cwhittle@sharplabs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 11:06
To: Landau, Richard
Cc: owner-wims@pwg.org; wims@pwg.org; harryl@us.ibm.com
Subject: RE: WIMS> CIM> DMTF Alliance Partner draft presentation
Rick:
Have you updated the wiki to reflect the latest changing the CRs? Is your "work to be done" presentation also current? I can incorporate some of these into the presentation this morning before I head off to Portland to present this afternoon.
Best regards,
**CW
_____
From: Richard_Landau@Dell.com [mailto:Richard_Landau@Dell.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:30 AM
To: harryl@us.ibm.com; Whittle, Craig
Cc: owner-wims@pwg.org; wims@pwg.org
Subject: RE: WIMS> CIM> DMTF Alliance Partner draft presentation
Craig and Harry,
No problema. The Monday session was a big surprise to me, and I mistakenly thought that 1:00 was the same as 1:00, but one of them was Monday and one Wednesday. I apologize for the confusion, but I was completely surprised by the mention of a Core-specific planning session that I had never heard about before.
The Monday Core session was only about estimating the workload for next year. I called in then and told Core about the remaining work in
- Printer device (a dozen-ish new classes plus corrections, approx fifteen new CRs),
- plus the coming work for PrintService (approx 8-10 new CRs),
- PrintJob (no estimates), PrintQueue, and PrintSAP.
And I mentioned that there might be similar work for projectors (more than six months from now) and a profile for network printers (also more than six months from now).
I sent them a couple pictures from our Visios with small annotations, which I also posted on our site as
HYPERLINK "ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/cim/Visio-Printer_11_WhatRemainsToBeDone_B.pdf"ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/cim/Visio-Printer_11_WhatRemainsToBeDone_B.pdf
The session Wednesday seems to be a different topic, status and plan update, and I think the slides you did are right on the money.
Please let us know how it comes out. Thanks. Again, sorry for the confusion.
rick
_____
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 23:41
To: Whittle, Craig
Cc: owner-wims@pwg.org; Landau, Richard; wims@pwg.org
Subject: RE: WIMS> DMTF Alliance Partner draft presentation
Craig, appreciate you doing the best you can here. Seems like some date/time info may have been miscommunicaed.
I'm sure I'd heard Wed 7/18.
In any case... I know Mark said webex dialup would be a viable option.
Harry Lewis
Program Manager - Intellectual Property & Standards
Phone: 303-924-5337
e-mail: harryl@us.ibm.com
HYPERLINK "http://www.infoprint.com/"infoprint.com
"Whittle, Craig" <cwhittle@sharplabs.com>
Sent by: owner-wims@pwg.org
07/13/2007 12:20 PM
To
<Richard_Landau@Dell.com>, <wims@pwg.org>
cc
Subject
RE: WIMS> DMTF Alliance Partner draft presentation
Rick:
The last e-mail I received from Mark Carlson was on 6/22. This is the first I have heard of the Alliance F2F next week, Monday @ 1PM PT. Unfortunately I have a conflict at that time. I hope the Core session is OK with you calling in.
Thanks,
Craig Whittle
Project Manager / Scrum Master
Sharp Labs of America
(360) 817-8544
_____
From: Richard_Landau@Dell.com [mailto:Richard_Landau@Dell.com]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 10:23 AM
To: Whittle, Craig; wims@pwg.org
Subject: RE: WIMS> DMTF Alliance Partner draft presentation
Craig, I just heard from Jon Crandall, co-chair of the CIM Core WG, that they would like PWG representation at a meeting at the Alliance F2F next week, Monday @ 1PM PT, specifically at a Core session for planning next year. Are you planning to go to that session or some other one? They would like to hear in particular how far we are down the path and how far we still have to go. The question is how many CRs do we expect to put in next year (I interpret that as the next 12 months starting now) so they can plan for resources.
I will try to get complete info on the meeting name, location, time, and so forth. Unfortunately, some of the schedule is published only to TC members, of which I am not one. Did you get a schedule by email from Mark Carlson? If I can get the phone information, I will call into the meeting, too.
Here is some crude info in case you need some: we have about twelve classes left to go to finish the printer device, after the four that passed today. We are roughly half way through the technical stuff, but I think we are 75% of the way through the controversies over class structure and property structure. So it should take slightly less time to finish the Printer device. How, how much time the PrintService and other classes will take is hard to estimate. I haven't really looked at them. I expect that there will be several classes added, primarily for capabilities and settings.
rick
PS: Your email signature does not contain a phone number, so I couldn't get hold of you that way.
_____
From: owner-wims@pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Whittle, Craig
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 17:11
To: wims@pwg.org
Subject: WIMS> DMTF Alliance Partner draft presentation
All:
A draft presentation for the DMTF Alliance Partner Technical Symposium in Portland, OR on July 18th has been posted (see HYPERLINK "ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/presentations/07 JUL DMTF Alliance Partner Technical Symposium.ppt"ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/general/presentations/07%20JUL%20DMTF%20Alliance%20Partner%20Technical%20Symposium.ppt). We will review this as part of our face-to-face meeting. I look forward to your comments.
Best regards,
**CW
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.10/908 - Release Date: 7/19/2007 6:10 PM
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jul 20 2007 - 13:17:39 EDT