Hi Paul,
No - I object to AddHardcopyDocument. The only NEW kind of document
(other than w/ data by value or w/ data by reference) is a scanned document.
No other service would ever be infixed in your proposal.
I much prefer AddScanDocument as parallel to [Add/Send]Document.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
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
Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094
Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Paul Tykodi <ptykodi at tykodi.com> wrote:
> Hi Ira,****
>> ** **
>> Following your logic, should we consider maintaining AddHardcopyDocument
> as the top level in the SM tree and then expand the model with
> Add<RelevantPWGDefinedService>Document at the next level in the model for
> each service that can support hardcopy document input?****
>> ** **
>> Best Regards,****
>> ** **
>> /Paul****
>> --****
>> Paul Tykodi
> Principal Consultant
> TCS - Tykodi Consulting Services LLC
>> Tel/Fax: 603-343-1820
> Mobile: 603-866-0712
> E-mail: ptykodi at tykodi.com> WWW: http://www.tykodi.com****>> *From:* mfd-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:mfd-bounces at pwg.org] *On Behalf Of *Ira
> McDonald
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 07, 2013 11:16 AM
> *To:* Zehler, Peter; Ira McDonald
> *Cc:* IPP at pwg.org; mfd at pwg.org; Michael Sweet
> *Subject:* Re: [MFD] [IPP] Don't redefine Hardcopy Document****
>> ** **
>> Hi,****
>> Which I think implies that I'd like to rename AddHardcopyDocument to****
>> AddScanDocument.****
>> Cheers,****
>> - Ira****
>>> ****
>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
> Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
> 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> Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094
> Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434****
>> ** **
>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com>
> wrote:****
>> Hi,****
>> At the risk of adding confusion...
>> We speak of submitting Jobs with document data by reference (URI)
> or by value (attached). ****
>>> Why not just add "by scan (local scanner)".****
>> What I don't like about the term "Hardcopy Document Object" is that
> the word Scan or Scanner isn't there, but this is always the source.****
>> Cheers,****
>> - Ira****
>> PS - I dislike putting titlecase prefixes on Document Object or Job****
>> Object - it muddies readability.
>> ****
>>> ****
>> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG IPP WG
> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
> Chair - TCG Embedded Systems Hardcopy SG
> 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> Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094
> Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434****
>> ** **
>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Zehler, Peter <Peter.Zehler at xerox.com>
> wrote:****
>> Mike,****
>> Well, I guess I’ll be quiet now except to say it would be a good time to
> describe the attributes and constraints on all three types of Documents. J
> ****
>> 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:* Michael Sweet [mailto:msweet at msweet.org]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 06, 2013 10:14 PM****
>>> *To:* Zehler, Peter
> *Cc:* IPP at pwg.org; mfd at pwg.org> *Subject:* Re: [IPP] Don't redefine Hardcopy Document****
>> ****
>> Pete,****
>> ****
>> I guess we are in violent agreement. One comment below.****
>> ****
>> On 2013-08-06, at 12:54 PM, "Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler at xerox.com>
> wrote:****
>> ..****
>> This is the difference between a Hardcopy Document and a Hardcopy Document
> /Object/. We need to define the latter and not the former.****
>> <PZ>I see no subclasses of Documents in the PWG Semantic Model or IPP.
> Whether a document is added to a Job by value, by reference, or by
> reference to the output of the scanner subunit, it is still just a Document
> object. ****
>> ****
>> I am not suggesting a subclass of document.****
>> ****
>> We already categorize documents as "referenced" and "with attached
> document data". For hardcopy documents we would have a Document Object
> containing description attributes/elements that identify the source and
> properties of the hardcopy document.****
>> ****
>> I chose to call it a "Hardcopy Document Object" as opposed to a "Document
> Object with Associated Hardcopy Document Input Elements". How the digital
> representation is stored and when exactly the document is scanned are,
> IMHO, implementation specific.****
>> ****
>> _____________
> Michael Sweet****
>> ****
>> ** **
>> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp****>> ** **
>> ** **
>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20130807/92d97f2b/attachment.html>