attachment-0001
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">All,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Here are comments I have for the MFD
Requirements document so far.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Section 1</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Line 166-168 – “Although it is not
one of the modeling documents to be offered as a PWG standard, the XML
representation of the MFD Model in PWG Semantic Model 2.0 (REF) is the
schematic representation of the entire MFD Services model.”</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">1) MFD Model and Semantics is a subset
of PWG Semantic Model 2.0?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">2) The “PWG Semantic Model 2.0” document
does not exist yet – recommend to remove it or change to “the XML representation
of PWG Semantic Model 2.0” and provide the reference to the latest schema
ZIP file. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Here
are the rationales -</font>
<ul>
<li><font size=2 face="sans-serif">All MFD individual service specifications
need to wait for the MFD Overall Model and Semantics specification to be
approved, before they can be moved to any Last Call. </font>
<li><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Yet I don’t believe the MFD Overall
document can be approved without the approval of this MFD Requirements
document. By referencing the PWG Semantic Model 2.0, the requirement document
need to depend on the referenced PWG Semantic Model 2.0 which does not
exist yet. </font>
<li><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The truth is that PWG Semantic Model
1.0 was a generalization from IPP/1.1. It was approved several years
after IPP/1.1 finally was approved. PWG Semantic Model 2.0 is following
the same path, it cannot be finalized until MFD Model and Semantics is
approved as a standard. </font>
<li><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Looking at all these processes and
timelines, if this MFD requirement document is depend on PWG Semantic Model
2.0 standard, we are really waiting for years before any of the MFD service
spec can be approved!!!!</font></ul>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Line 169 – “The Semantic Model structure
lends itself to automatic code generation”???? => I think it more correct
to state that the XML Schema representation of the Semantic Model structure
lends itself to automatic generation by available XML tools in the market.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Section 2.1</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Line 179 - “ners” => scanners????</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Section 2.2</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Line 227 – The IPP formed the basis
for PWG Semantic Model 1.0 => recommend to clearly specify “IPP/1.1”.<b>
</b>Because IPP/2.0 formed the basis for MFD Model and Semantics,
that in turn forms the basis for PWG Semantic Model 2.0, according to our
current approach in these PWG Model and Semantics standards, right????</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Line 244 – any reason for Consumer
to be capitalized?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Section 2.3.3</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Line 302 – Semantic Model V2 models
all MFD Services => Maybe it’s more correct to state that Semantic
Model V2 include modeling of all MFD Services?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Line 311 – “Semantic Model V2 also
suggests a way to address the bothersome issue of the plethora of device
drivers” => Is this somebody’s imaginary claim? Without the approved
document or any interim document, would there be issues with we arbitrarily
make the claim in a published standard?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b> </b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Section 3.1</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Line 386 – Semantic Model => v2
??? Again, if yes, please remove.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><b>Section 3.2.3</b></font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Line 410-412 – “although much of the
model will also be applicable to SOHO level applications, it is not
intended to suggest that services at that level to be fully compatible
with the models.”=> what are the models implied here? Is it acceptable
that SOHO MFD services not compatible with PWG MFD model standard for that
market?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Line 560 – (1) Sub-Section number need
to increase one level : 4.4=> 4.3.3</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
(2) Walk-Up Batch => missing “Scan” at the end???</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Line 627 – Use Case 4 => Use Case
5</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Line 657 – Use Case 5 => Use Case
6</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">-Nancy</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Nancy Chen<br>
Principal Engineer<br>
Solutions and Technology<br>
Oki Data<br>
2000 Bishops Gate Blvd.<br>
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054<br>
Phone: (856)222-7006<br>
Email: Nancy.Chen@okidata.com</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Zehler, Peter"
<Peter.Zehler@xerox.com></b> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: mfd-bounces@pwg.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">05/20/2010 09:35 AM</font>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler@xerox.com>,
<mfd@pwg.org></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">[MFD] RE: MFD teleconference Thursday
5/20 at 3:00 PM EST (12:00 PM PST)</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Apparently this did not get to the DL.<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Peter Zehler<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Xerox Research Center Webster<br>
Email: Peter.Zehler@Xerox.com<br>
Voice: (585) 265-8755<br>
FAX: (585) 265-7441<br>
US Mail: Peter Zehler<br>
Xerox Corp.<br>
800 Phillips Rd.<br>
M/S 128-25E<br>
Webster NY, 14580-9701<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>From: Zehler, Peter<br>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 3:04 PM<br>
To: mfd@pwg.org<br>
Subject: MFD teleconference Thursday 5/20 at 3:00 PM EST (12:00 PM PST)<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>There will be an MFD conference call at 3:00 PM EST
(12:00 PM PST)<br>
Thursday May 20. Below is the proposed agenda<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>The meeting is held in accord with the PWG Intellectual
Property Policy.<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada): 1-866-469-3239<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-429-3300<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-408-856-9570<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Attendee access code: (by request only, please contact
me if you do not<br>
have it)<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Agenda:<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>1. Identify Minute Taker<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>2. Approval of minutes from last meeting<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2><ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/minutes/pwg-mfd-minutes-20100506.pdf><br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>3. Agenda bashing<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>4. Discuss MFD Requirements document (focus on use
cases)<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2><ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/wd/wd-mfdreq10-20100517.pdf><br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>5. Discuss Face to Face agenda<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>6. Next steps<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Click Here to Join Live Meeting<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2><https://www.livemeeting.com/cc/xerox/join?id=PWG_MFD&role=attend&pw=PQ%<br>
25%3EFj5sN><br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Peter Zehler<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Xerox Research Center Webster<br>
Email: Peter.Zehler@Xerox.com<br>
Voice: (585) 265-8755<br>
FAX: (585) 265-7441<br>
US Mail: Peter Zehler<br>
Xerox Corp.<br>
800 Phillips Rd.<br>
M/S 128-25E<br>
Webster NY, 14580-9701<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>--<br>
This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>
believed to be clean.</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>_______________________________________________<br>
mfd mailing list<br>
mfd@pwg.org<br>
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd</font></tt>
<br>
<br><br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.