attachment

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2715.400" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV>Harry,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The long slow pipeline is the IETF.  A PWG document that details the concept would be fine. (The Semantic Model document needs to point to the documents with the bloody details for the semantic elements)  I do not want to delay or sidetrack the Semantic Model schedule.  Things like the document object and your proposal need to be worked in a timely manner.  A slot should be allocated to address these issue and drive them independently to closure.  I am looking to have the first Semantic Model and update process finalized soon after the January PWG meeting.  It seemed to me that the Document Object and Job Receipt fit well in the PWG IPP WG.  (Let's not worry about the IETF IPP WG)  Which begs the question "What is the status of the PWG IPP WG"?  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Pete</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <UL> <UL> <UL> <UL> Peter Zehler XEROX Xerox Architecture Center Email: PZehler@crt.xerox.com Voice:    (585) 265-8755 FAX:      (585) 265-8871 US Mail: Peter Zehler <UL>         Xerox Corp.         800 Phillips Rd.         M/S 128-30E         Webster NY, 14580-9701 </UL></UL></UL></UL></UL> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>-----Original Message----- From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 10:15 AM To: Zehler, Peter Cc: McDonald, Ira; sm@pwg.org Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes </DIV> Yes, there is the need for some housekeeping attributes and attribute values. For example, one problem might be what happens when a printer does not support "copies" (because they have not implemented PDL override) yet you still want to access the "copies-actual" attribute. I think it is appropriate to discuss this in SM because it was a shortcoming of IPP. SM is attempting to improve on the IPP basis. I don't feel we are in the mode of extending IPP beyond what is already in the (long, slow, sticky) pipeline. ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM Printing Systems ---------------------------------------------- <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD> <TD>"Zehler, Peter" <PZehler@crt.xerox.com> 10/03/2002 05:43 AM <TD>                To:        Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>         cc:        sm@pwg.org         Subject:        RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes        </TR></TBODY></TABLE> Harry,   I like the concept.  I prefer "actual" to "chosen".  Have you considered new operations (e.g. "GetActualJobAttributes"  "GetJobsHistory") to accomplish the same thing.  It would make Printers that implement a job receipt more explicit.  There would be no need for all the new attributes (i.e. "ZZZ-actual").  On the other hand using attributes instead of new operations does have the benefit of being able to retrieve both the requested and actual attributes together and having a static representation that differentiates the two.  Perhaps using both the "actual" attributes and new operations might be more explicit.     Of course there will probably need to be some housekeeping attributes added to the printer for history management/configuration.  I would prefer that something like this be documented separately and referenced in the PWG Semantic Model.  The document would probably be an extension to IPP.   Pete   Peter Zehler XEROX Xerox Architecture Center Email: PZehler@crt.xerox.com Voice:    (585) 265-8755 FAX:      (585) 265-8871 US Mail: Peter Zehler         Xerox Corp.        800 Phillips Rd.        M/S 128-30E        Webster NY, 14580-9701 -----Original Message----- From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:57 PM To: McDonald, Ira Cc: sm@pwg.org Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes I'm fine with "chosen" vs. "actual"... not as concerned about the name as the concept. In this case, actual might differ from requested due to something like a PDL override (so "chosen" seems to fit) or it COULD differ due to some circumstance (like the job was aborted prior to all copies completing) in which case "actual" seems more apropos. ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM Printing Systems ---------------------------------------------- <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD width="2%"> <TD width="45%">"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> 10/02/2002 07:30 PM <TD width="51%">               To:        Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, sm@pwg.org        cc:                Subject:        RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes       </TR></TBODY></TABLE> <TT> Hi Harry, For what it's worth... Printer MIB used (from DPA I think...) the terminology of 'Declared' or 'Requested' (for the input) and 'Chosen' (for what you're calling 'Actual' below). Cheers, - Ira McDonald -----Original Message----- From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:56 PM To: sm@pwg.org Subject: SM> Job "Actual" attributes In IPP, PWG Semantic Model and PSI we have Job Template attributes with "sister" (supported, default and ready) Printer Description attributes. When discussing the purpose of a "Job Ticket" in the semantic model, we often refer to Job Template attributes as the "job ticket" as these carry production intent. By definition, when queried, Job Template attributes must return the value associated with each attribute during submission. Thus, there is no way to query a job (or document) and learn WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED w.r.t. any particular attributed (ex. copies). This is covered by the JDF job ticket but we have said JDF is too workflow oriented for (initial) inclusion into the PWG Semantic Model. I would like to propose a solution - the addition of a group of Job Description attributes referred to as "-actual". These could be extensions to the group of Job Progress attributes or a separate grouping of Job Actual (or "Job Completion") attributes. I know, in IPP proper, we don't have the notion of job "history" (the job "disappears" as soon as it has completed) so "actuals" would not be very useful. But in the semantic model and PSI we're trying to overcome this. To the extent that we are reluctant to embrace a full fledged job ticket, the addition of "-actual" attributes should go a long way toward providing much of the essential JT functionality that was previously missing for non-produciton environments. For example: +===================+======================+ | Job Template      |Job Description:Actual| |   Attribute       |   Value Attribute    | +===================+======================+ | copies            | copies-actual        | | (integer (1:MAX)) | (integer (1:MAX))    | +-------------------+----------------------+ | finishings        | finishings-actual    | |(1setOf type2 enum)|(1setOf type2 enum)   | +-------------------+----------------------+ | sides             | sides-actual         | | (type2 keyword)   | (type2 keyword)      | +-------------------+----------------------+ | number-up         | number-up-actual     | | (integer (1:MAX)) | (integer (1:MAX))    | +-------------------+----------------------+ | orientation-      |orientation-requested-| |  requested        |  actual              | |   (type2 enum)    |  (type2 enum)        | +-------------------+----------------------+ | media             | media-actual         | | (type3 keyword |  | (type3 keyword |     | |    name)          |    name)             | +-------------------+----------------------+ | printer-resolution| printer-resolution-  | | (resolution)      |  actual             | |                   | (resolution)         | +-------------------+----------------------+ | print-quality     | print-quality-actual | | (type2 enum)      | (type2 enum)         | +-------------------+----------------------+ ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM Printing Systems ---------------------------------------------- </TT> </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>