Hi Mike,
I agreed with you and Pete in a new version an hour ago.
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/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 1:23 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Ira McDonald wrote:
>> 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
>>> I believe we had decided to do a single spec with two chapters/sections,
> one for job ticket and one for
> PrintServiceCapabilities.PrintJobTicketCapabilities,
> PrintServiceDefaults.DefaultPrintJobTicket and PrintServiceDescription since
> PPD and MS PSF both provide this information and there really isn't much
> material to put in that second chapter/section (stuff all of the supported
> into capabilities, the default job ticket in DefaultPrintJobTicket, and the
> following descriptive elements in PrintServiceDescription).
>> (sadly it looks like I either forgot to include that in the minutes or am
> remembering wrong, but I think it makes a lot of sense to include both the
> full job ticket mapping along with the thin PrintService discussion...)
>> (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.
>>> Ira, currently Google uses PPD and PSF (what they are calling XPS) for both
> job ticket and capabilities/description/defaults, and since the two are
> closely tied together (same source data) it makes sense to "draw a picture"
> in the mapping spec to show how is all holds together (or doesn't, as the
> case may be...) It is not enough to show them how to map from PWG to PPD or
> PSF, we need to provide the glue for the reverse mapping, too, otherwise
> there is no path to full PWG SM adoption.
>>> 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>>>>>> __________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>>
--
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/20110818/7b819351/attachment-0001.html>