Kelly,
There was a great deal of discussion, and the consensus was that the PWG very much appreciated Google’s intent to retain compliance with the PWG Semantic Model and willingness to work with the PWG members. We understand that specifics of the transport and aspects of the format need to be compatible with other Google requirements; but we believe that the actual imaging semantics can be a proper subset of the PWG Semantic Model. As others have written, this would be beneficial to manufacturers since devices already use PWG semantics; it would be beneficial to Google and client providers since it is fairly consistently implemented (avoiding the need for extensive device- or manufacturer-specific handing); and it would be beneficial to the end users because a reasonable subset will provide access to the features that they would like to use.
I have attached a applicable sections of the minutes below. Some of the more significant aspects are:
· Providing the current PWG Job Ticket and Capabilities document to Google (immediately)
· Identify a reasonable subset of the elements in that document commensurate with our understanding of the level and requirements of the users Google is anticipating (very soon, and we would appreciate Google’s input)
· Extend the Job Ticket from just Print service to all multifunction services (concentrating initially on Scan and Resource/storage services)
· Provide a JSON/protobuf mapping/binding of PWG PJT
Please let us know if you see alternate or additional things we can do to facilitate this coordination.
I know you understand the difficulty of getting manufacturers to assign their engineers to work on public standards, but we believe that, in this case, imaging manufactures understand that it is in their best interests. There are usually problems in achieving consensus, but in this case, the work largely involves things that have already been agreed to. We have high hopes that the PWG and Google can work together effectively on this.
Many thanks,
Bill Wagner, Cloud WG Vice Chair
-----------------------------------------
Google Cloud Print CDD
a. See emails posted to the Cloud mailing list
b. Q: Do we send PWG PJT to Google?
⁃ A: Yes
⁃ Action: Mike to send Google a copy of PWG PJT
c. Q: Do we ask Semantic Model WG to take on storage capabilities WRT resource service
⁃ A: Yes
d. CDD seems to expose implementation details, not sure why they have been defined differently
from the Semantic Model
e. Important to work with Google to resolve these discrepancies, they seem to be open to this
f. CDD also seems to expose vendor-specific extensions, unsure how that maps?
g. What elements of the PWG PJT should be exposed in CDD?
⁃ No objection to compatible/proper subset of PWG PJT mapped to JSON/protobuf
⁃ Glen will look into feasibility of writing something up
⁃ Action: Glen to find out if he can spend time making a proper subset of PWG PJT for GCP/CDD
h. Another significant source of information would be the mapping document (even the current
version, since PPD is in decent shape)
⁃ Still need more work on MSPS
⁃ Send drafts to Google as well
i. "Tiger team" for GCP:
⁃ Do we make a JSON/protobuf mapping/binding of PWG PJT?
⁃ Pete Zehler has a JSON version of Semantic Model - maybe we can get it and subset it?
⁃ Action: Mike to send email to Pete requesting copy of JSON files for PWG PJT
From: cloud-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:cloud-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of kdLucas
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 1:03 PM
To: cloud at pwg.org
Subject: [Cloud] CDD Feedback
I was curious if there was any new feedback on Google's Cloud Device Description (Semantic CAPS) at the Feb 6-7 Face-to-Face meeting.
Our developers are currently in the design phase so it's the right time to impact this effort.
Kelly
kdLucas
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, 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/20130212/e42ae72b/attachment-0002.html>