attachment

<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"> <style>  </style>  </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> The minutes appear to reflect substantive material that is in or is to go in to the specification. The following comments  do not question that the minutes correctly reflect the meeting, but are addressed to the substance of the reported discussion. References are to page number  and line number of the minutes<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Page 4 Line 25: Default scan ticket: since a scan template is defined as an unbound scan ticket, is not the term default scan template more consistent?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Page 5 line 1.   Perhaps the indentation is unintended, but  are “state, State Reason” etc considered part of Scan ID?  Also It would seem that there should be  common element in all the scan service headings so that they can all be applied to the same scan service. That is, should not some sort of  Scan Service ID  should be common.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Page 5, line 39: “Service Type” is eliminated because I is said to be in Scan Service Status. Neither do I see service type in Scan Service nor would I consider  type to be a status. Of course, it is not clear what the values of Service type are. If they are scan, print, fax etc, then the type may be regarded as inherent in the group names (unless the same group names are used for all services.)<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Page 6, line 9: Scan Service Capabilities – Would it not be clear if these various attributes were followed by “supported” ? e.g., Number-Up Supported<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Page 7 Line 1:  Since the term “Must Honor” is used exclusively in the discussion, would not “Must honored element list” be more appropriate than  JobMandatorELements? <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Page 7, Line 8:  For my own edification, are there clear definitions of element and element attribute? The previous paragraph talked about must honored elements and this paragraph talked about must honored attributes.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Page 7, Line 43:  I do not follow why page ranges does not make sense for scan. It seems a useful attribute to me.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Page 8, line 41:  We need some expertise here. For example physical  constituents of  the CIS vs CCD based scanner are quite different.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Thanks,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Bill Wagner<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>