Pete,
I don't quite follow your first comment, but certainly agree with your
second comment. I think these additional elements are an important part of
the modeling, but it is not clear in all cases whether the element should
be.
1. the general ServiceDescription group (OperationsSupported should be),
2. the System specific SystemDescription area (yes on DeviceId,
PrinterInfo, PrinterLocation, PrinterMakeAndModel, PrinterMoreInfo,
PrinterMoreInfoManufacturer and PrinterName, perhaps with Device in place of
Printer)
3. Service-specific Description Areas (such as they are now with the
Print Service)
These all have impact on the Overall MFD document. Can we schedule some
workgroup time to discuss this, and the AvailableResources questions too?
Thanks,
Bill Wagner
From: Zehler, Peter [mailto:Peter.Zehler at xerox.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 1:03 PM
To: William Wagner; mfd at pwg.org
Subject: RE: [MFD] MFD Schema questions
My comments are inline below.
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: mfd-bounces at pwg.org [mailto:mfd-bounces at pwg.org] On Behalf Of William
Wagner
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 12:31 PM
To: mfd at pwg.org
Subject: [MFD] MFD Schema questions
I am confused by what appears to be a lack of parallelism in the schema,
although with the implications it has in the specification documents.
We have been, most reasonably, identifying the operations specific to each
service. However, I do not see these operations identified in the Schema for
any service other than Print. (perhaps I am just missing them)
<PZ>The WSDL identifies the operations defined for each service (e.g.
PwgPrint.wsdl). The messages for the operations are defined in an
associated schema (e.g. PwgPrintOpMsg.xsd). The operation messages schema
are really part of the Web Service Definition but are broken out due to
personal preferences. The elements in the operation parameters are drawn
from the PWG's MFD data model which are all the other schema in the
directory.</PZ>
For the Print Service, the PrintServiceDescription includes the general
ServiceDescription elements, and then some 40+ additional elements among
which are OperationsSupported.
However, the other Services include just the general ServiceDescription
elements and an "any", without any additional service-specific description
elements.
Perhaps at least the OperationsSupported element should be among the general
ServiceDescription elements? Although one would expect that there would be
Service-specific service description elements for each service.
<PZ>The reason OperationsSupported was included in Print is that it is the
mechanism used by IPP to determine which mandatory and optional operations
are available in the implementation. It seems to me that an element listing
all the supported operations would be useful in all the services. It should
be included in the ServicesDescription base class. There may be other
Printer description elements such as the "three sisters" attributes from IPP
(i.e. PrinterUriSupported, UriAuthenticationSupported,
UriSecuritySupported). There are some elements that make sense to be
generalized to System as opposed to the base class for the Services.
Examples include DeviceId, PrinterInfo, PrinterLocation,
PrinterMakeAndModel, PrinterMoreInfo, PrinterMoreInfoManufacturer and
PrinterName. These are useful for the MFD as a whole.</PZ>
Thanks,
Bill Wagner
--
--
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/mfd/attachments/20090707/ee6c61d0/attachment-0001.html>