Hi Pete,
Here are my comments.
?Introduction? Section
Line 16 ? I would like to clarify the meaning of "protocol" used here
?Imaging Peripherals Protocol?? Is this a concrete protocol binding from
MFD semantic model? If so, how about ?Internet Imaging Protocol?, being a
better advancement from "Internet Printing Protocol". Or ?Imaging Web
Services"?
?Evolution of Semantic Model? Section
1. Could we have a better title? What about ?Proven and Expected
Benefits of PWG Semantic Model? ? Or simply "Benefits of PWG Semantic
Model" with subsections on "Proven" and "expected" benefits? I think it
better to use ?Benefits? as the theme and weave the evolution of the
semantic model as the roadmap to achieve these benefits ? essentially
telling the ?Why? of the Semantic Model.
2. With ?benefits? as the theme, I think it?s better to have
subtitled sections clearly list all proven or expected benefits of PWG
Semantic Model.
3. Along with benefits, I think it's better to have the disadvantages
of full-proprietary approach without a standard that could cost the entire
imaging device/solution industry be illustrated in parallel to make reader
truly understand the cited benefits.
4. Line 28-30 ?The ?gateway? is used here and also line 134 to imply
a specific architecture component used for concrete protocol mapping
involving syntactic translation from one data model to the other for
different protocols. But ?gateway? has many other meanings in general,
the use of this term can easily lead to confusion for reader from my
opinion.
?Model Extensibility and Vendor Differentiation? Section
If we have consensus on changing the title of the previous section to ?
Proven and Expected Benefits of PWG Semantic Model?, then I think it?s
better to fold this section under the previous section as a subsection.
?Value of Web Services Mapping? Section
In terms of the "Web Services" technology, there maybe other approaches
such as RPC, REST, other than SOAP & XML. A brief mentioning of this and
explain your defintion of "Web Services" here equates to "SOAP protocol
and XML data binding" approach would be helpful to clear confusion.
Line 59-60 : I feel some transition is needed from the first paragraph to
the list of WS-* standard associated with web services. What are you
trying to say to the Value of Web Services mapping by listing these
standards?
Lines 78-82: It?s not clear to me that this paragraph add more value to
the ?value of Web Services Mapping?.
Like previous sections, I think it's better to also mention the
disadvantages of other mapping approaches in order to convince readers
this is the best.
?Effective Standards and PWG?
Line 112-117 beginning with "Proprietary": I got lost here. Is this
sentence trying to explain the disadvantage of a de-facto standard to
those PWG members who are not the leader/owner of the de-facto standard?
Please clarify.
?Internet Printing Protocol Becoming Imaging Peripheral Protocol?
Line 138-139: ?For example, moving IPP to an XML encoding reduces the
scope of ?attribute-fidelity? to be element-wide instead of
operation-wide, allowing a more expressive Job Ticket.? How is this a true
benefit? Please give a concrete example.
Line 140-141: Should the ?IPP view of Print Service? be ?Print Service
view of IPP?? It?s not clear how the IPP view of Print Service can enable
the expansion of web services based print service protocol to include
other MFD services.
It?s very confusing the way ?Semantic model? is sometimes used
interchangeably with a concrete ?protocol?. Maybe here ?IPP view of Print
Service? should be stated as ?IPP Semantic Model view of Print Service??
In all previous section, the word ?protocol? seems to mean a concrete
protocol mapping of the semantic model?.
We are advancing IPP ?protocol? to web services based Print Service, and
expanding that to MFD services, why bother to name it backward (in terms
of technology advancement) to Imaging ?peripheral? ?protocol?? Why not
?imaging web services??
-Nancy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Chen
Principal Engineer
Solutions and Technology
Oki Data
2000 Bishops Gate Blvd.
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
Phone: (856)222-7006
Email: Nancy.Chen at okidata.com
"Zehler, Peter" <Peter.Zehler at xerox.com>
Sent by: mfd-bounces at pwg.org
01/11/2010 07:36 AM
To
<mfd at pwg.org>
cc
Subject
[MFD] Reminder, action request :Comments needed on MFD white paper
From: Zehler, Peter
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 8:45 AM
To: mfd at pwg.org
Subject: Comments needed on MFD white paper
All,
I need comments on the white paper on the goals for the MFD modeling
effort
<ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/white/GoalForTheMFDModelingEffort20100108
.pdf>. The only changes to this version is the addition of line numbers
and an updated date. Per our teleconference yesterday comments are due
by close of business Monday January 11. I will turn the document around
quickly. The goal is PWG wide distribution on Thursday January 14.
Thanks,
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
--
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/20100111/fbe45d04/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/mfd/attachments/20100111/fbe45d04/attachment.htm>