attachment
<html>
<head>
<meta name="generator" content="Windows Mail 17.5.9600.20856">
<style data-externalstyle="true"><!--
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph {
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst,
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle,
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast {
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
line-height:115%;
}
--></style></head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div data-externalstyle="false" dir="ltr" style="font-family: 'Calibri', 'Segoe UI', 'Meiryo', 'Microsoft YaHei UI', 'Microsoft JhengHei UI', 'Malgun Gothic', 'sans-serif';font-size:12pt;"><div><br></div><div data-signatureblock="true"><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><font face="Arial">In recent SM3 conference calls, we have considered why the
SM3 workgroup has been unable to make much progress on its primary project, the
update of the PWG Semantic Model speciation (SM3). There was some progress in
2011-2013 (</font><a href="ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/wd/wd-pwgsemanticmodel20-20130624.pdf" target="_parent"><u><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">wd-pwgsemanticmodel20-20130624.pdf</font></u></a><font face="Arial">)
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>, and attempt to reactivate this in
December 2013 (</font><a href="ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/sm3/white/Sections-1-3-20131216.docx" target="_parent"><u><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">Sections-1-3-20131216.docx</font></u></a><font face="Arial">).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However since then, the only activity has
been multiple versions of outlines. </font></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><font face="Arial">Certainly, not having a secretary or effective
minutes have resulted in a loss of continuity and repeated considerations of
the same issues, often with different results since everyone has a different
recollection of what was decided.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And,
of course, the workgroup members have other responsibilities and cannot always
complete tasks on time, assuming that without minutes, they know what their
tasks were. These problems reflect a lack of commitment by the workgroup and by
the PWG membership to maintain and advance the Semantic Model. And this perhaps
stems from a lack of understanding and consensus on the value and purpose of
the effort. </font></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><font face="Arial">The PWG, unlike a government committee and some standards
organizations, is not out just to perpetrate itself. We do not generate
specifications just for the sake of generating specifications; the member
companies would not support this and the participants have other things to do.
If there is no value in an effort, it does not get participation and support, and
limps along until it is finally recognized as defunct. Although there remains
some interest in the Semantic Model activity, there appears to be no consensus
on the purpose and the value of this activity. So the support is spotty and the
fine outlines and approaches suggested by some do not resonate with anyone
prepared to do the writing.</font></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><font face="Arial">One of the original value points was to have a binding-independent
representation of the imaging interface model (although this may no longer be
applicable as no one envisions a binding other than IPP.) Another value point
suggested was to have an abstract summary description to provide an overview
(and perhaps a guide to the many IPP documents). Another idea was that an
abstract approach might expose issues and potentials hidden by the details of a
specific binding. Certainly, the form and structure of an SM3 specification
would be different depending on the primary perceived value point.</font></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><font face="Arial">It is interesting that, at the end of 2009, the workgroup
generated a paper to "<span style="line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;"> review and refresh the rationale for the MFD Modeling effort and the 2 generation
of PWG Semantic Model version 2" (</span></font><a href="ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/white/GoalForTheMFDModelingEffort20100114.pdf" target="_parent"><u><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/white/GoalForTheMFDModelingEffort20100114.pdf</font></u></a><font face="Arial">).
This too was at a time of wavering interest. Perhaps the rationale outline in
that document still holds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, if we
cannot agree on the purpose of an updated semantic model specification, I do
not think that the workgroup will produce a useful specification. Although, in
a press, something can be produced, I and I suspect most of the PWG
membership are not interested in a nominal document just created to satisfy a
charter item.</font></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><font face="Arial">I suggest that the PWG membership consider the purpose of
the Semantic Model<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>activity, whether
there is justifiable value in updating the Semantic Model and, if so, what that
value is. Establishing these things should provide both the direction and the
necessary participation to complete these specifications. And if they cannot be
established, then there obviously is no need to continue with the activity. </font></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><font face="Arial">Thanks, Bill Wagner</font></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><br></div></div>
</body>
</html>