attachment-0001
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I'm not opposed to new operations but
I'll observe that multiple attributes is in keeping with the way IPP is
currently structured. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">----------------------------------------------
<br>
Harry Lewis <br>
IBM Printing Systems <br>
---------------------------------------------- </font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)"
<robert_b_taylor@hp.com></b></font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">10/03/2002 09:42 AM</font>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> To:
"Zehler, Peter" <PZehler@crt.xerox.com>,
Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>,
sm@pwg.org</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> cc:
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> Subject:
RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes</font>
<br>
<br><font size=1 face="Arial"> </font></table>
<br>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Courier New">I think I prefer the more
"operations" or structurally-oriented approach. The model
of having multiple attributes that describe the same "feature"
in multiple states (capabilities, intent, process, logging/audit), etc.
seems fragile and error-prone (hence the current "process"
vs. "product" discrepancies in CIP4 ...). I'd rather have
us define the feature once, and then define operations or structures that
apply the workflow stage semantics. </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Courier New">bt</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Tahoma">-----Original Message-----<b><br>
From:</b> Zehler, Peter [mailto:PZehler@crt.xerox.com]<b><br>
Sent:</b> Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:43 AM<b><br>
To:</b> 'Harry Lewis'; McDonald, Ira<b><br>
Cc:</b> sm@pwg.org<b><br>
Subject:</b> RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes<br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">Harry,</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">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. </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">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.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 color=blue face="Arial">Pete</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<p><font size=3 face="Impact">Peter Zehler</font><font size=3> </font><font size=3 color=red><br>
XEROX</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="Tahoma"><br>
Xerox Architecture Center</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
Email: PZehler@crt.xerox.com</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
Voice: (585) 265-8755</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
FAX: (585) 265-8871 <br>
US Mail: Peter Zehler</font><font size=3> </font>
<p><font size=2 face="Arial"> Xerox Corp.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
800 Phillips Rd.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
M/S 128-30E</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="Arial"><br>
Webster NY, 14580-9701</font><font size=3>
</font>
<p><font size=2 face="Tahoma">-----Original Message-----<b><br>
From:</b> Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]<b><br>
Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:57 PM<b><br>
To:</b> McDonald, Ira<b><br>
Cc:</b> sm@pwg.org<b><br>
Subject:</b> RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes<br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
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.
<br>
---------------------------------------------- <br>
Harry Lewis <br>
IBM Printing Systems <br>
---------------------------------------------- </font><font size=3><br>
<br>
</font>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=2%>
<td width=45%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"McDonald, Ira"
<imcdonald@sharplabs.com></b></font><font size=3> </font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">10/02/2002 07:30 PM</font><font size=3>
</font>
<td width=51%><font size=1 face="Arial"> </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><br>
To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS,
sm@pwg.org</font><font size=3> </font><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><br>
cc: </font><font size=3>
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><br>
Subject: RE: SM>
Job "Actual" attributes</font><font size=3> <br>
</font><font size=1 face="Arial"><br>
</font></table>
<br><font size=3><br>
</font><font size=2><tt><br>
Hi Harry,<br>
<br>
For what it's worth...<br>
<br>
Printer MIB used (from DPA I think...) the terminology of<br>
'Declared' or 'Requested' (for the input) and 'Chosen'<br>
(for what you're calling 'Actual' below).<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
- Ira McDonald<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]<br>
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:56 PM<br>
To: sm@pwg.org<br>
Subject: SM> Job "Actual" attributes<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
In IPP, PWG Semantic Model and PSI we have Job Template attributes with<br>
"sister" (supported, default and ready) Printer Description attributes.
When<br>
discussing the purpose of a "Job Ticket" in the semantic model,
we often<br>
refer to Job Template attributes as the "job ticket" as these
carry<br>
production intent. By definition, when queried, Job Template attributes
must<br>
return the value associated with each attribute during submission. Thus,<br>
there is no way to query a job (or document) and learn WHAT ACTUALLY<br>
HAPPENED w.r.t. any particular attributed (ex. copies). This is covered
by<br>
the JDF job ticket but we have said JDF is too workflow oriented for<br>
(initial) inclusion into the PWG Semantic Model. <br>
<br>
I would like to propose a solution - the addition of a group of Job<br>
Description attributes referred to as "-actual". These could
be extensions<br>
to the group of Job Progress attributes or a separate grouping of Job Actual<br>
(or "Job Completion") attributes. I know, in IPP proper, we don't
have the<br>
notion of job "history" (the job "disappears" as soon
as it has completed)<br>
so "actuals" would not be very useful. But in the semantic model
and PSI<br>
we're trying to overcome this. To the extent that we are reluctant to<br>
embrace a full fledged job ticket, the addition of "-actual"
attributes<br>
should go a long way toward providing much of the essential JT functionality<br>
that was previously missing for non-produciton environments. <br>
<br>
For example: <br>
<br>
+===================+======================+<br>
| Job Template |Job Description:Actual|<br>
| Attribute | Value Attribute
|<br>
+===================+======================+<br>
| copies | copies-actual
|<br>
| (integer (1:MAX)) | (integer (1:MAX)) |<br>
+-------------------+----------------------+<br>
| finishings | finishings-actual |<br>
|(1setOf type2 enum)|(1setOf type2 enum) |<br>
+-------------------+----------------------+<br>
| sides | sides-actual
|<br>
| (type2 keyword) | (type2 keyword) |<br>
+-------------------+----------------------+<br>
| number-up | number-up-actual
|<br>
| (integer (1:MAX)) | (integer (1:MAX)) |<br>
+-------------------+----------------------+<br>
| orientation- |orientation-requested-|<br>
| requested | actual
|<br>
| (type2 enum) | (type2 enum)
|<br>
+-------------------+----------------------+<br>
| media | media-actual
|<br>
| (type3 keyword | | (type3 keyword | |<br>
| name) | name)
|<br>
+-------------------+----------------------+<br>
| printer-resolution| printer-resolution- |<br>
| (resolution) | actual
|<br>
| | (resolution)
|<br>
+-------------------+----------------------+<br>
| print-quality | print-quality-actual |<br>
| (type2 enum) | (type2 enum)
|<br>
+-------------------+----------------------+<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------- <br>
Harry Lewis <br>
IBM Printing Systems <br>
---------------------------------------------- </tt></font><font size=3><br>
</font>
<br>