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><SPAN class=099272811-03102002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Harry,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=099272811-03102002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=099272811-03102002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>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></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=099272811-03102002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=099272811-03102002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Of
course there will probably need to be some housekeeping attributes added to the
printer for history management/configuration. </FONT></SPAN><SPAN
class=099272811-03102002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>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></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=099272811-03102002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=099272811-03102002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Pete</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<UL>
<UL>
<UL>
<UL>
<P><FONT face=Impact>Peter Zehler</FONT> <BR><FONT face=XeroxPeopleNet
color=#ff0000>XEROX</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>Xerox
Architecture Center</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Email:
PZehler@crt.xerox.com</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>Voice: (585) 265-8755</FONT> <BR><FONT
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>FAX: (585)
265-8871</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>US Mail: Peter Zehler</FONT>
<UL>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>
Xerox Corp.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2> 800 Phillips
Rd.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2> M/S 128-30E</FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>
Webster NY, 14580-9701</FONT> </P></UL></UL></UL></UL></UL>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Harry Lewis
[mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:57
PM<BR><B>To:</B> McDonald, Ira<BR><B>Cc:</B> sm@pwg.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE:
SM> Job "Actual" attributes<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=2>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. </FONT><BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=2>----------------------------------------------
<BR>Harry Lewis <BR>IBM Printing Systems
<BR>---------------------------------------------- </FONT><BR><BR><BR>
<TABLE width="100%">
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<TD><FONT face=sans-serif size=1><B>"McDonald, Ira"
<imcdonald@sharplabs.com></B></FONT>
<P><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>10/02/2002 07:30 PM</FONT> </P>
<TD><FONT face=Arial size=1> </FONT><BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=1> To:
Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, sm@pwg.org</FONT> <BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=1> cc:
</FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>
Subject: RE: SM> Job
"Actual" attributes</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=Arial size=1>
</FONT></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR><FONT size=2><TT>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>----------------------------------------------
<BR></TT></FONT><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>