I have posted a preliminary draft of MFD requirements at:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/wd/reqmfdreq10-20091202.pdf and
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/wd/reqmfdreq10-20091202.doc
This is a sketch more than a complete document, indicating the outline of an
approach. With respect to Nancy's comment, I have tried an experiment in
generalizing the Scan Service requirements and I am interested in reactions
on how that works. But I think the overall requirements need to cover more
than the scenarios in which Imaging Services are used. After all, most of
these features already exist in one form or another. I think the stress must
be on the need for a uniform Imaging Services structure. That seems (to me
at least) the reason for this activity.
I have included much in the document that may not be agreed to by the rest
of the working group, so I strongly suggest that it be looked though and
perhaps discussed at the face-to-face.
Thanks,
Bill Wagner
From: Nancy.Chen at okidata.com [mailto:Nancy.Chen at okidata.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 2:16 PM
To: William Wagner
Cc: mfd at pwg.org; mfd-bounces at pwg.org
Subject: Re: [MFD] MFD Overall draft update
Hi Bill,
I think your recommendation "for a re-look" of use scenarios and
requirements is good. But I would like to remind you all that the "Network
Scan Use Cases and Requirements" had passed PWG Last Call, contains many use
cases and design requirements for Scan Service and part of Resource Service.
The link to this document is:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/wd/lcrc-mfdscanreq10-20080409.pdf
IPP and PSI also had very good use cases and design requirements developed
before the specs were finalized. I think these can be very good references
for the start of your "rationale" document for the MFD Overall Semantics.
-Nancy
"William Wagner" <wamwagner at comcast.net>
Sent by: mfd-bounces at pwg.org
12/02/2009 12:00 PM
To
<mfd at pwg.org>
cc
Subject
[MFD] MFD Overall draft update
I have posted the current MFD Overall draft at:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/wd/wd-mfdoverallmod10-20091201.pdf and
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/wd/wd-mfdoverallmod10-20091201.docx
This should deal with almost all of the issues brought up in October. I have
noted most of these changes (other than purely editorial) with highlighting.
I have also added a few comments, which are actually questions to be
addressed.
For whatever reason, MS Word is really having problems with this document,
inconsistently updating figure and table references and locking up at least
one a session. maybe my program is corrupted. Updating cross references
manually is prone to error (and attention fatigue.) I am putting off putting
in references until the text is basically stable (which will be soon I
hope.)
Note that it was agreed to put the "Rationale" in a separate overall
document. I will post a first cut (and sparse) draft of that tomorrow
morning. I think it important that this be properly considered and "real",
not just some words to nominally satisfy something in the PWG Process
document. I really need help with this.
1. What do we intend in the Service Descriptions?
2. Why are we doing this? That is, what are the scenarios that show the
need for the information in these documents? (This will imply a way in which
this information will be used.)
3. What are the requirements that must be addressed in the Service
Descriptions (and associated documents)?
I think that we all had some notion of these things when we started,
although they may not have been the same. It is unclear whether, as this
activity has progressed, these ideas have solidified, become more consistent
or perhaps have become confused in details and mechanics and have
dissipated. This is a good opportunity for a re-look, with either resulting
affirmation or modification.
Thanks,
Bill Wagner
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________
mfd mailing list
mfd at pwg.orghttps://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd
--
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/20091202/51638a3e/attachment-0001.html>