attachment-0001

We would prefer a job ticket approach (and have been lobbying for one in the PWG Semantic Model, including a submission for a simple way for IPP to carry a job ticket and the recommendation that we consider a simplified JDF JT as the basis... thereby leveraging expended effort). So I support Bob Taylor's recommendations, in general, and discussions regarding optimization. Several comments, however. 1. Our proposal to add "-actual" (to the existing cadra of IPP "-supported", "-default", "-ready", "-requested" etc. attributes) is intended as a SIMPLE solution which could be supported in v1 of the Semantic Model and PSI. 2. At today's SM conference call we said we will NOT try and define a Job Ticket for v1 (wise decision, as I'm sure we've barely begun to imagine all the nuances of JT and got stuck, almost immediately on the question of Job vs Doc JTs). 3. Assuming it will take a while for us to hash out the ideal JT for office applications I would like to see us go forward with the rather benign "-actual" proposal 4. Back on the JT thread... I do NOT like the streamlining proposed (below) by Tom. Specifically, if we limit Job Processing Actuals to only ones deferred from attributes declared during job creation, we will MISS information if, for example, the PDL had embedded commands that resulted in an action that was not requested. (ex. Job creation was silent on copies, the PDL called for 3 copies). Our view is we WANT to know exactly what HAPPENED... (we care less why). ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM Printing Systems ---------------------------------------------- <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td> <td>"Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com> Sent by: owner-sm@pwg.org 10/10/2002 05:38 PM <td>                To:        Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)" <robert_b_taylor@hp.com>         cc:        "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, "Zehler, Peter" <PZehler@crt.xerox.com>, sm@pwg.org, printing-jobticket@freestandards.org         Subject:        RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes        </table> I like Bob Taylor's idea of using the same PWG Semantic Model Job and Document Processing attributes (probably not PWG SM Description attributes) in a different context to indicate what really happened, rather than inventing more xxx-actual attributes.  The PWG Semantic Model already uses this approach for Job Creation, in that Document Processing attributes can be supplied at the Job Level in the Create-Job operation and in each Send-Document operation.  The IPP Document object extension proposes re-using the same IPP Job Template attributes as Document Template attributes, rather than inventing new "document-xxx" Document Template attributes.  (Also the IPP "document-overrides" and "page-overrides" collection attributes re-use the existing Job Template attributes for each override collection value, rather than inventing new name mangling for them).   However, I'd also like to suggest a streamlining, by having the new Job Processing Actuals be only the ones that deferred from the ones submitted in the Job Creation Request.  This would do two good things:  Be much more compact and provide a useful indication to the user about what happened differently from what he requested.  I suspect that any defaulting that the Printer supplied would wind up in the Actuals group, but be of the form "xxx", not "xxx-default".  If the PDL had a different value and the Printer didn't override the PDL, then the actual should be the value from the PDL.     Of course, the Job Processing, Job Description, Document Processing, and Document Description attributes that the user submitted should also be in the Job History in just the form that he submitted (as in the current IPP Job History for Job Template attributes and soon to be Document Template attributes - see RFC 2911 section 4.3.7.2).   The FSG Job Ticket API wants to store results in the Job Ticket eventually as well.   Comments?   Tom -----Original Message----- From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 09:37 To: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) Cc: McDonald, Ira; Zehler, Peter; sm@pwg.org Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes I'm not opposed to new operations but I'll observe that multiple attributes is in keeping with the way IPP is currently structured. ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM Printing Systems ---------------------------------------------- <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td width=1%> <td width=33%>"TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)" <robert_b_taylor@hp.com> 10/03/2002 09:42 AM <td width=65%>               To:        "Zehler, Peter" <PZehler@crt.xerox.com>, Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, sm@pwg.org        cc:                Subject:        RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes       </table> 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.     bt -----Original Message----- From: Zehler, Peter [mailto:PZehler@crt.xerox.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:43 AM To: 'Harry Lewis'; McDonald, Ira Cc: sm@pwg.org Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes 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%> <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      </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>