attachment

I agree the captured image may never be printed. The premise for my comment was that the accounting system may wish to distinguish between use of the grayscale vs color scanner (for example). Thus the analogy to counting black vs color impressions.   I also agree selection of terms should not be so controversial. We need to decide and make sure we are not stepping on prior normative references. Where prior art is unclear, we need to clarify whenever possible. I don't see how this discussion leads to the notion that the Counter Spec is useless! That seems like an inflated characterization given a few last call issues and after so much long and hard work. ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM STSM 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%>"William A Wagner" <wamwagner@comcast.net> Sent by: owner-wims@pwg.org 04/25/2005 04:35 PM <td width=59%> <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td> <div align=right>To</div> <td><wims@pwg.org> <tr valign=top> <td> <div align=right>cc</div> <td> <tr valign=top> <td> <div align=right>Subject</div> <td>RE: WIMS> Black vs Mono</table> <table> <tr valign=top> <td> <td></table> </table> Harry,   I do not agree that the argument for using  “black”  for images is the same as using “black” for impressions. For example, you are not interested in colorant usage in image counters; indeed there is no inherent reason to believe that the image will ever be printed. But quite frankly, I don’t feel that strongly one way or the other. Ron, how critically do you take this issue?   We do have significantly more far reaching issues that this. If we are dropping the counter MIB because we believe all counters should be fully defined in the counter spec, then I suggest we will have the same problem mapping to a schema. Without being able to map to a form that can be communicated as useful parameters, the  counter spec becomes useless.   Bill Wagner     -----Original Message----- From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 3:41 PM To: McDonald, Ira Cc: William A Wagner; wims@pwg.org Subject: RE: WIMS> Black vs Mono   Thanks, Ira. I was aware of the inconsistency (but not all the specific references). I think it is a result of a rather sloppy (on our part) mapping of marketing and technical terms into our standards and semantics. This shows the value of, now, having a common semantic model where definitions from parallel work groups must be reconciled (we didn't have this in the past). Throughout the past 20 years, it has been common in the MARKET PLACE to distinguish between "monochrome" and the emerging "color" market in printers. Monochrome (in my opinion) was basically a technical term used by marketing as a more concise (and "sexy") way to describe what the average public would otherwise refer to as "black and white". Of course, PWG members understand the term both technically and in it's market use. In the past, we got away with assuming our spec reader could also be as ambidextrous in their use of the terms. When we came to the Counter Spec, where we are actually wanting to measure the use of black colorant in exclusion of any other mixtures, I think we were right to choose the term BLACK as it is more explicit than monochrome. ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM STSM 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=39%>"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> 04/25/2005 01:24 PM <td width=60%> <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td width=8%> <div align=right>To</div> <td width=91%>Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, William A Wagner <wamwagner@comcast.net> <tr valign=top> <td> <div align=right>cc</div> <td>wims@pwg.org <tr valign=top> <td> <div align=right>Subject</div> <td>RE: WIMS> Black vs Mono</table>   <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td width=50%>  <td width=50%> </table> </table> Hi Harry, The Job Mon MIB (of which you are a co-editor) uses the term monochrome once in the (badly written) definition of 'Impressions'. Later in HighlightColorImpressions, it uses the term black (to describe the black colorant).  There, it does not refer to monochrome. The Printer MIB uses the term monochrome once to say "process color of 1 implies monochrome". The Printer MIB uses the term black once to refer to the colorant in prtMarkerColorantValue. 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 -----Original Message----- From: owner-wims@pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Harry Lewis Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 12:33 PM To: William A Wagner Cc: wims@pwg.org Subject: RE: WIMS> Black vs Mono The reasoning for using the term Black (vs Monochrome) sure seems identical in either case (Images or Impressions)... just that Images are scanned and Impressions are "deposited". If we have used both terms in past, normative definitions, I guess we'll have to live with them. If not, we should think seriously about converging on "Black" and making sure we embellish any explanations where needed. ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM STSM Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group http://www.pwg.org IBM Printing Systems http://www.ibm.com/printers 303-924-5337 ---------------------------------------------- "William A Wagner" <wamwagner@comcast.net> 04/25/2005 10:12 AM ToHarry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS cc<wims@pwg.org> SubjectRE: WIMS> Black vs Mono Harry, I agree with your comments, and would argue that "Black" impressions is preferable to "Monochrome" impressions. However, Ron did not refer to impressions but rather to images. So this is not a question about what is actually deposited on media, but what is defined in a job. If no color is defined, then the image may be considered monochrome. A job where a cyan image is defined would be treated as full color, even if it were the only color.  If this is Ron's reasoning, I think it makes sense. The question then is if the use of "black" with impressions and "monochrome" with images adds to understanding or to confusion. Bill Wagner -----Original Message----- From: owner-wims@pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Harry Lewis Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:21 AM To: William A Wagner Cc: wims@pwg.org Subject: WIMS> Black vs Mono As background... we discussed Black vs Mono at the Tokyo f2f. There is an intuitive question of whether we are really trying to count BLACK (only) pages vs Full Color or Spot Color pages or whether we are using Black as a synonym for Monochrome vs Full Color. The result would be nearly the same except that with the later one could ask how to count a completely Cyan (unlikely) page, for example. In Tokyo we concluded that, indeed, we are counting BLACK (only) pages. Aside from being inherently monochrome, Black has a unique role in printing as many printers have various contone components (of which Black is one) and spot colors but Black (only) impressions may be accomplished without engaging the contone features or pathway in some cases. Also, Monochrome and Black really ARE synonymous, Black being so much so the majority of monochrome that other cases (Cyan only, Magenta only) become pathological. I know another thread ensued abut where and what documents already carry these definitions but I wanted to share this "common sense" dialog which occurred in Tokyo at the Last Call review also, prior to the next WIMS teleconference. ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM STSM Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group http://www.pwg.org IBM Printing Systems http://www.ibm.com/printers 303-924-5337 ----------------------------------------------