attachment-0001

Inserted... ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group http://www.pwg.org IBM Printing Systems http://www.ibm.com/printers 303-924-5337 ---------------------------------------------- <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td width=40%>"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> 06/02/2004 11:47 AM <td width=59%> <table width=100%> <tr> <td> <div align=right>To</div> <td valign=top>"'wbmm@pwg.org'" <wbmm@pwg.org> <tr> <td> <div align=right>cc</div> <td valign=top>"'Wagner,William'" <WWagner@NetSilicon.com>, Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS <tr> <td> <div align=right>Subject</div> <td valign=top>Need quick decisions on schema changes</table> <table> <tr valign=top> <td> <td></table> </table> Hi, PLEASE answer quickly with your opinions on edits below, so I can begin the edits needed in all of the WIMS schema after last week's PWG Vancouver meetings. Last week, we reduced the scope of the PWG Std Events spec and Events schema to Printer-only (Printer, Job, Document, and Subunit).  Fine, but... (1) Alerts schema - Should I delete 'AlertResource'?     - it depended on the now _deleted_ ResourceXxx events      in the Events schema and Resource object in the      (abandoned) Imaging System Model draft HL - Yes, for now... but we need to put these back in later (2) Alerts schema - Should I change 'NotifySourceState'    to delete 'Testing' and 'Down' from 'hrDeviceStatus'    in Host Resources MIB (RFC 2790)?     - this change will make support of coherent Printer      state harder to harmonize with HR MIB    - I think that it's a bug that Printer state in IPP/1.1      requires state reasons to report Down or Testing HL - No (3) Alerts schema - Should I rename 'NotifySourceState'    to 'NotifyPrinterState' and 'NotifySourceURI' to    'NotifyPrinterURI'?     - doing so effectively closes the future possibility      of multifunction alert support in WIMS HL - No! (4) Resource schema - Should we abandon this schema?     - last week's meeting seemed against adding any      new objects except in some future PWG MFP Model    - abandoning Resources seems foolish to me  HL -   Seems foolish to me too. Don't like the word abandon. Prefer "staging" (5) Schedule schema - Should I reorganize it into    the three Monitoring, Management, and Admin groups    of Actions?     - this seems worthwhile, as it describes WIMS levels      better HL - Yes (6) Schedule schema - Should I delete Resource actions?     - Does WIMS WG accept the need to model Resource? HL - No (Yes... but possibly at a later "stage") (7) Schedule schema - Should I import 'NotifyEvents' from    the Events schema?        - this looks better, but again loses Resources HL - Not sure... why does this loose Resources... because event schema requirments are being driven by PSI? Seems incorrect. (8) Schedule schema - Should I add the elements for    Supported[Operations|Actions|Objects] here, so    that RegisterForManagement operation works?     - the WIMS operations won't appear in any generic      PWG Semantic Model element in the forseeable future HL - why do you say the WIMS ops won't appear in SM? Do you mean just the admin related Ops? Cheers, - Ira Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Blue Roof Music / High North Inc PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839 phone: +1-906-494-2434 email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com