Hi Pete,
Thanks for your good clarifications. I like combining in the single
PWG Print Job Ticket spec the job ticket, capabilities, and default
job ticket (DMTF settings).
Therefore, I've incorporated *both* PWG PrintJobTicket and
PrintServiceCapabilities element groups in the scope of my
suggested revision:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/wd/wd-cloud-charter-20110818.pdf / doc
- clean with all changes accepted
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/wd/wd-cloud-charter-20110818-rev.pdf / doc
- cumulative redlines
Cheers,
PS - I'm not very happy about the changed dates for the various
Cloud Imaging first edition (Print) specs - these should be discussed
in detail at the Cloud Imaging WG teleconference next Monday.
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SWG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusichttp://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Christmas through April:
579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
734-944-0094
May to Christmas:
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Zehler, Peter <Peter.Zehler at xerox.com>wrote:
> Ira,****
>> I view the Printer Capabilities and Print Job Ticket as linked. The Print
> Job Ticket spec I’m drafting describes the different uses of the Print Job
> Ticket including****
>> **1) **It is used in a job submission protocol to carry the User’s
> request. ****
>> **2) **It is used in a PrintJob object to indicate the accepted
> request that might have been modified to resolve conflicting or unsupported
> elements.****
>> **3) **It is used in the PrintJob is to carry the applied
> PrintJobTickets elements as a PrintJob is processed by the Printer (i.e.,
> PrintJobReceipt/xxx-applied). ****
>> **4) **It is used by the Printer to indicate the default values for
> the Printer (i.e., PrintServiceDefaults/xxx-default). ****
>> **5) **It is used by the Printer to indicate the capabilities of the
> Printer (i.e., PrintServiceCapabilities/xxx-supported). ****
>> **6) **It is used by the Printer to indicate the capabilities of the
> Printer available without operator intervention (i.e.,
> PrintServiceCapabilitiesReady/xxx-ready).
>> ****
>> I have not written the capabilities section yet but I see it mainly as a
> table indicating the element name and associated capabilities syntax along
> with some verbiage to explain the relationships. The capabilities elements
> are used to indicate if a Print Job Ticket element is supported by the
> Printer and the supported values.****
>> ** **
>> For Cloud printing the Client needs a Print Job Ticket. The Client may to
> know the capabilities and defaults. It is preferable to have a scalable
> Client that can adapt the capability of a Cloud Printer. Of course a Client
> can be written to a limited subset of the model but even then it may be
> useful to examine the capabilities to determine if simple features such as
> color printing are supported.****
>> ** **
>> I view the Print Job Ticket, its supported elements and allowed values
> (i.e., capabilities), and its default values as a single specification. I’d
> also point out that Google Cloud Print uses PPD and PSF as a Ticket, Default
> and Capabilities as well.****
>> ** **
>> Pete ****
>> ** **
>> ** **
>> Peter Zehler
>> Xerox Research Center Webster
> Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com> Voice: (585) 265-8755
> FAX: (585) 265-7441
> US Mail: Peter Zehler
> Xerox Corp.
> 800 Phillips Rd.
> M/S 128-25E
> Webster NY, 14580-9701 ****
>> ** **
>> *From:* cloud-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:cloud-bounces at pwg.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Ira McDonald
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 18, 2011 10:38 AM
> *To:* Michael Sweet; Ira McDonald
> *Cc:* cloud at pwg.org>> *Subject:* Re: [Cloud] Revised charter****
>> ** **
>> Hi,
>>> I believe both the title and description of the new spec need changes:
>> (1) Title should be
> "Mapping of PWG Job Ticket to/from MSPS, PPD, and JDF (PJTMAP)"
> - per last week's minutes and our F2F discussion, JDF in scope
>> (2) Document filename should be
> "wd-cloudpjtmap10-yyyymmdd"
>> (3) Description should be strictly limited to PWG Job Ticket (the
> only normative reference needed for this mapping spec) and
> name MSPS, Adobe PPD, and CIP4 JDF
>> (4) If our scope is expanded to address PrintServiceCapabilities,
> then a SECOND mapping spec should be written, not a muddy
> scope job ticket mapping spec
>> (5) Both directory (charter) and prefix (ch) are wrong in this
> Interim draft, per PWG Naming Policy
>> The term "PWG semantic elements" is far too fuzzy to be source
> or target for mapping - also there is no proposal to map the vast
> majority of PWG SM/2.0 elements or objects.
>> The urgent issue is non-PWG *job ticket* usage in Cloud offerings
> - capabilities are and will continue to be advertised and discovered
> by a number of different means in Cloud Print implementations.
>> Cheers,
> - Ira
>>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
> Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SWG
> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
> Blue Roof Music/High North Inc
>http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc> mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com> Christmas through April:
> 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176
> 734-944-0094
> May to Christmas:
> PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
> 906-494-2434****
>>>> ****
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:**
> **
>> The changes look good to me; aside from the editorial comments about the MS
> licensing of MSPS, and the filename (should be "wd" until approved :) I
> think we are good to go...****
>> ** **
>> I will fix the minutes tonight...****
>> ** **
>> On Aug 17, 2011, at 3:33 PM, William Wagner wrote:****
>> ** **
>> In accord with the information in the minutes of the face-to-face Cloud
> Meeting minutes of 2 August (
>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/minutes/cloud-f2f-minutes-20110802.pdf), I
> have revised the existing, approved Cloud Imaging WG charter and posted an
> interim draft.****
>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/wd/ch-cloud-charter-20110818-rev.pdf****>>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/wd/ch-cloud-charter-20110818.docx****>> ****
>> I sought to make changes in a way consistent with the original. In the
> interests of using concall time effectively, I request that those who prefer
> different wording or abbreviations post their preferred version, and that
> discussion be focused on content. One issue that needs to be resolved is
> under comment W1. “Considering that Semantic Model V2 is not yet formalized,
> but represents the preferred model, what do we use as a reference? If the to
> be issued PJT, do we loose mapping to the SM elements related to printer
> description?”****
>> ****
>> Since the charter already separated out the print and multifunction
> document activity milestones, I made no changes to these other than the
> dates.****
>> ****
>> (I should also observe the minutes cited above have an incorrect title and
> date)****
>> Thanks,****
>> ****
>> Bill Wagner****
>> ****
>> ****
>> ****
>>> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> ****
>> believed to be clean. _______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
>cloud at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud****>> ** **
>> ________________________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair****
>> ** **
>>> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean. ****
>>> _______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
>cloud at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud****>>>> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean. ****
>>
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/cloud/attachments/20110818/f60e1025/attachment-0001.html>