Ira,
IIRC, all of the SM operations use <service> in their names, currently Add<service>HardcopyDocument, Send<service>Document, and Send<service>Uri.
Using Add<service>ScanDocument might get confusing. Add<service>DocumentFromScanner? Or Send<service>DocumentFromScanner to retain consistency with the other Send operations?
On 2013-08-07, at 11:32 AM, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/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 11:29 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>>>>>>
_____________
Michael Sweet
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20130807/3bcb0eb1/attachment.html>