attachment
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:174421228;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1876520578 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:889342552;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1295496514 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:1814910749;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1272293102 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>As evidenced in the proposed updated charter for the IPP Working Group (<a href="ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ipp-charter-20130821.pdf">ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/wd-ipp-charter-20130821.pdf</a>), that workgroup has reconsidered several projects that had been identified, placing the very reasonable criteria of requiring that <span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>use cases,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>editors, and interested vendors be identified before proceeding. Most of the suspended projects may be considered bindings of Imaging Service Semantic Models for services other than printing (FaxOut was retained primarily because it is basically done). During the discussion, there was some comments of how this would affect the non-printer Imaging Service Model efforts in SM3 and Cloud workgroups. I suggest that the potential impact of this decision should be a primary topic to be considered at both Semantic Model and Cloud Workgroup meetings on Monday, August 26. I offer the following observations for consideration:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>1.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>PWG Process says that there must be an announced prototype of any specification before that specification can be considered Stable and put up for PWG Last Call and Vote. Some have implied that, without an IPP Prototype, a Semantic Model specifications of an Imaging Service cannot move forward as a Standards Track document. However:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level2 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>a.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>The Process does NOT specify to what degree the specification must be prototyped.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level2 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>b.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>The Process does NOT specify what constitutes a prototype of an abstract model, although traditionally it has been the prototype of a binding of the model. This delays approval of a Model and, to the extent that implementers would want an approved model before they implemented it, would be an unreasonable requirement. This has not been a problem in the past because we have typically worked backward and documented the model after the binding was done.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>I suggest that, TO THE EXTENT THAT “USE CASES, EDITORS AND INTERESTED VENDORS” may be identified, it is reasonable to have a model defining project without an existing binding project, to treat the produced document as a standards track specification, and to put that specification up for vote without a prototyped binding.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>2.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>With respect to Semantic Model efforts, the questions of use cases and interested vendors may be addressed by considering the extent to which the MFD Semantic Model has been applied in practice for Imaging Services other than Printing. It has been suggested that there has been little or no adoption. If this is true, and there is no significant vendor interest, then one must seriously question the rationale in proceeding with an Imaging Systems document (and the sanity of the editors). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.25in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>3.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Even without multifunction, it was suggested that an update to the Print Model would still be needed. The counter to this might be that the only binding in practice was IPP, that the update would just formalize what has already been done in IPP (working backward again), that the significant information already is in IPP documents and therefore that there is no need for an updated printing model.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>4.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>With respect Cloud Imaging System Modeling, the intent was to apply and extend the Semantic Model to operation in a cloud environment for those services to which that environment seemed to apply. Some Semantic Model services have already been dropped from Cloud. Therefore, the criteria for proceeding with services other than Print in the Cloud workgroup is not just the identification of use cases, editors, and interested vendors, but also the continued support of these services in the Semantic Model workgroup.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Finally, although I think that the consistent modeling of imaging services was a great idea, for various reasons it may not be the way the industry has implemented or wishes to implement multifunction imaging services. IF that is the case (and the IPP group has said as much), then we should recognize this in our projects.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Bill Wagner<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>