PWG-ANNOUNCE> (ACTION REQUESTED) Is there adequate support in the PWG for completing a Multifunction Device model? (Please reply by 3/21/07)

PWG-ANNOUNCE> (ACTION REQUESTED) Is there adequate support in the PWG for completing a Multifunction Device model? (Please reply by 3/21/07)

Zehler, Peter Peter.Zehler at
Tue Mar 6 12:42:17 EST 2007

(Note: Action item is at the end of the note)




The objective of this note is to gauge the level of support for pursuing
a data model for Multifunction Device (MFD).  The MFD model will cover,
at a minimum, the objects and attributes relating to the System, its
Subunits and Services, and the Jobs and Documents associated with the
Services.   The Services include Print, Scan, Copy, FaxIn, FaxOut among
others.  The model will also include abstract definitions for the
interfaces offered by the System and its Services.  I am not proposing a
specific protocol mapping although a schema and probably WSDL files will
be developed to insure the validity of the schema in a Web Services


A scalable model for an MFD will benefit all our companies just as the
Printer MIB, IPP model, and Semantic Model v1 has for printing in
various network environments. 

The alignment of semantics in IPP, UPnP, and WS-Print allows the
semantics of printing to be implemented in our products once and
simplified protocol gateways make the internal system available to a
number of network environments.  The result is reduced costs for
products across the industry.  The PWG can help drive alignment of
semantics for the devices and system we produce.  Anyone who has
implemented IPP, UPnP, JDF Digital Print or WS-Print has benefited from
previous efforts of PWG members to maintain semantic alignment across
these environments.  


The PWG/DMTF alignment effort is an example of the role of the PWG as
the source of expertise in the domain of Print systems.  The Printer MIB
is very useful for device management.  Even though the CIM
representation of the Printer was based on the MIB, the two have
diverged.  The current effort will realign the models.  Looking forward
the PWG Semantic model v1 will help align the print service aspects of
the PWG and DMTF.  I hope the PWG can extend the role as domain experts
to all the functions offered by the MFDs our companies now produce.  I
hope members of the PWG can be instrumental in the alignment of MFD
Services not only in PWG and DMTF but also in other environments.


I believe an industry wide agreement on an MFD model is of great value.
However, a common model for MFDs can not be based on the opinion of a
few individuals.  We need wider PWG support to negotiate a fair
representation that maps as easily as possible to our companies
implementations or needs.  I remain committed to the development of an
industry wide MFD model in the PWG forum or through other venues.  I
would prefer to see this work done in an open forum such as the PWG.  I
have no interest in developing shelfware.  Therefore I need to know if
the members of the PWG see this work as useful and more importantly if
there will be active support for the work going forward.


It is time to work on detailed service specifications for the services
offered by MFDs.  It is up to us to prioritize the order the services
will be worked on and if more than one service will be worked on at a
time.  We need to document the new objects and attributes to the level
of detail found in rfc2911.  (I am NOT advocating the publishing of
rfcs.  I expect the documents to be published as PWG specification.)
Nothing in version 2 of the Semantic Model is cast in concrete.  I am
willing to continue as chair of the Semantic Model Working Group.  I am
willing to make any changes to the current schema and WSDL files as
agreed to by the PWG.  I am willing to update PWG 5105.1 as the MFD work
progresses.  I am willing to actively participate in the drafting of the
service specification.  It is time now to see exactly what interest the
members of the PWG have in this effort.  Without editors for the Service
specification, the Semantic Model Working Group will not move forward


ACTION ITEM:  All members of the PWG need to inform me of their intent
for participation in the MFD modeling effort.  I would like to receive
responses by close of business March 21, 2007.  The responses should be
one of the following:

            Our company has no interest in supporting this effort

            Our company feels this is a worthwhile effort but is unable
to provide any support

            Our company feels this is a worthwhile effort but would like
to monitor progress (i.e. attend some of the phone conferences, monitor
mailing list)

            Our company feels this is a worthwhile effort and can
participate (i.e. attend phone conferences, review and comment on
specification, take on limited Action Items per your consent)

            Our company feels this is a worthwhile effort and can serve
as an editor of a Service specification


Please send response directly to Peter.Zehler at   I will collect
the information and provide an anonymous summary to the Semantic Model
Working Group.




Peter Zehler
Xerox Research Center Webster
Email: Peter.Zehler at
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 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Pwg-announce mailing list