attachment-0001

<!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 6.00.2722.900" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>With  various requests  to have e more  time to study this information, and Harry's unavailability, I am rescheduling  this conference call to next  week, 27 August, back at the Wednesday time slot. Please communicate thought\s or concerns on the WBMM reflector and perhaps we can get some consideration started.</DIV> <DIV> Bill Wagner  <TT> Greetings: Reminder about this  week's WBMM conference call, on Thursday again this week (but due  to return to Wednesday  thereafter). I understand that Harry  will set up  a  WebEX-like  capability.  However, I suggest that you pull  copies of the documents identified below from the PWG site and the HP site. Time:12:00 PM EDT (9:00 AM PDT) Thursday  August 2 7  2003 Call-in US Toll-free: 1-877-874-5524 Call-in International/Toll: 1-712-455-8420 Participant Identification number: 497478 The primary subject  is a consideration of the objectives  of WBMM (as represented in the charter, which has been approved) relative  to the  Web Services Management  Framework (WSMF) that is being developed by HP. Bob Tailor responded  to  a query about WSMF versus WBMM as follows: "HP does believe strongly in the WSMF as a basis for standards for the management of web services.  We do expect management of printers, MFPs and print services to move in this direction over time." I would ask that interested participants review the extensive  (albeit somewhat abstract) information on WSMF at  http://devresource.hp.com/drc/specifications/wsmf/index.jsp This  information declares that WSMF is "model  neutral", indeed  stating that, "in the future, further examples and white papers will be provided on how the management information from specific models like MIB/SNMP, CIM/WBEM, and JMX/JSR77 to WSMF can be achieved." This would suggest that WBMM efforts on further  defining an imaging  management model may be compatible with WSMF, or whatever the framework may evolve into. Yet, it is unclear that the rest of the  framework fully addresses the scenarios that WBMM has defined, although it seems geared up  to address some  much more  complicated use  cases. I have also reworked the  WBMM "definitions"  document and would suggest this as an outline for a partitioning the WBMM effort. Indeed, depending upon our take on WSMF, some  of the  partitions may be covered there and need not be addressed  by  the PWG ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wbmm/white/definitions2.pdf The WBMM working group  objective is to provide a standard way to address the  uses cases in the WBMM scenario. We  intend neither to arbitrarily fight WSMF nor to passively give way to it. WSMF is, as  one would expect, not imaging specific. On one hand, this is  positive  in that  it may become an accepted framework upon which a specific  imaging model may  be hung.  On the  other hand, as  in past cases, it  may hampered by  non-imaging  folks simplistic  view of  what imaging and imaging "object" management entails. And this relates  not only to the management model but to  the operations and delivery. We would very much appreciate your take  on this development, which illustrates the  important of defining a consistent Web Based management  approach,  but may wind up evolving into a  late and suboptimal solution for imaging devises and services. Many thanks Bill Wagner </TT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>