I thought that was the original intention. We just needed to insure the operation parameters and the associated document attributes are consistent across all the services.
See PWG 5108.01-2011
Table 77 MFD Common Operations and Antecedents
Table 78 Basic MFD Interface Requests and Responses
section 7.3.1.1 Add<service>HardcopyDocument
Peter Zehler
Xerox Research Center Webster
Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com<mailto: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: Paul Tykodi [mailto:ptykodi at tykodi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 11:29 AM
To: 'Ira McDonald'
Cc: IPP at pwg.org; mfd at pwg.org; 'Michael Sweet'; Zehler, Peter
Subject: RE: [MFD] [IPP] Don't redefine Hardcopy Document
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<mailto:ptykodi at tykodi.com>
WWW: http://www.tykodi.com<http://www.tykodi.com/>
From: mfd-bounces at pwg.org<mailto: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<mailto:IPP at pwg.org>; mfd at pwg.org<mailto: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/blueroofmusichttp://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com<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<mailto: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/blueroofmusichttp://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com<mailto:blueroofmusic at gmail.com>
Winter 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094<tel:734-944-0094>
Summer PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434<tel:906-494-2434>
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Zehler, Peter <Peter.Zehler at xerox.com<mailto: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. :)
Pete
Peter Zehler
Xerox Research Center Webster
Email: Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com<mailto:Peter.Zehler at Xerox.com>
Voice: (585) 265-8755<tel:%28585%29%20265-8755>
FAX: (585) 265-7441<tel:%28585%29%20265-7441>
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<mailto:msweet at msweet.org>]
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 10:14 PM
To: Zehler, Peter
Cc: IPP at pwg.org<mailto:IPP at pwg.org>; mfd at pwg.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20130807/94058f4c/attachment.html>