I suggest the considerations should be:
1. Does the Counter MIB (or a counter schema) need to include
the elements now in the Counter MIB to properly monitor usage? That is, is
it adequate to just reference managed entity "counters" with no indication
of physical component, unit or subunit?
2. If the Counters mapping does need to distinguish physical
component, does this physical hierarchy need to be defined in the counter
spec?
If the answers are both yes, then the counter spec as it stands is of only
academic interest. We could still run it through the process, but to what
purpose?
If the answer to 1 is NO, then we could define, now or later, a reduced MIB
and a slimmer XML mapping.
If 1 is YES and 2 is NO, then we can divorce the MIB from total dependence
on the spec and proceed with both. Ira does point out that this would be
more difficult with XML Schema.
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 12:03 AM
To: William A Wagner
Cc: wims at pwg.org
Subject: RE: WIMS> Black vs Mono
When we began the Counter Spec there wasn't even discussion of a Counter
MIB... it came later, presumably based on the realization that SNMP is a
more likely source at the device for the time being. What is REALLY counter
productive is for the Counter Spec and MIB to "cancel each other out"
because of noted misalignment during last call. The last call issues should
be addressed. If we've lost the bandwidth or initiative to address last call
issues on the MIB this should not stall the Spec.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM STSM
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
----------------------------------------------
"William A Wagner" <wamwagner at comcast.net>
04/25/2005 06:44 PM
To
Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS
cc
<wims at pwg.org>
Subject
RE: WIMS> Black vs Mono
Harry,
I don't regard the abandonment of the Counter MIB as a minor issue. I have
presented arguments that the counter MIB can stand on its own, using the
types of counters defined in the Counter spec but relying upon other
references for (or itself defining) the physical entities which these
counters reflect. I would like to see some discussion of this. I believe
that the Counter Spec must be mappable to a reasonable, useful counter MIB.
Bill Wagner
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 7:25 PM
To: William A Wagner
Cc: wims at pwg.org
Subject: RE: WIMS> Black vs Mono
I agree the captured image may never be printed. The premise for my comment
was that the accounting system may wish to distinguish between use of the
grayscale vs color scanner (for example). Thus the analogy to counting black
vs color impressions.
I also agree selection of terms should not be so controversial. We need to
decide and make sure we are not stepping on prior normative references.
Where prior art is unclear, we need to clarify whenever possible.
I don't see how this discussion leads to the notion that the Counter Spec is
useless! That seems like an inflated characterization given a few last call
issues and after so much long and hard work.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM STSM
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
----------------------------------------------
"William A Wagner" <wamwagner at comcast.net>
Sent by: owner-wims at pwg.org
04/25/2005 04:35 PM
To
<wims at pwg.org>
cc
Subject
RE: WIMS> Black vs Mono
Harry,
I do not agree that the argument for using "black" for images is the same
as using "black" for impressions. For example, you are not interested in
colorant usage in image counters; indeed there is no inherent reason to
believe that the image will ever be printed. But quite frankly, I don't feel
that strongly one way or the other. Ron, how critically do you take this
issue?
We do have significantly more far reaching issues that this. If we are
dropping the counter MIB because we believe all counters should be fully
defined in the counter spec, then I suggest we will have the same problem
mapping to a schema. Without being able to map to a form that can be
communicated as useful parameters, the counter spec becomes useless.
Bill Wagner
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 3:41 PM
To: McDonald, Ira
Cc: William A Wagner; wims at pwg.org
Subject: RE: WIMS> Black vs Mono
Thanks, Ira.
I was aware of the inconsistency (but not all the specific references). I
think it is a result of a rather sloppy (on our part) mapping of marketing
and technical terms into our standards and semantics. This shows the value
of, now, having a common semantic model where definitions from parallel work
groups must be reconciled (we didn't have this in the past). Throughout the
past 20 years, it has been common in the MARKET PLACE to distinguish between
"monochrome" and the emerging "color" market in printers. Monochrome (in my
opinion) was basically a technical term used by marketing as a more concise
(and "sexy") way to describe what the average public would otherwise refer
to as "black and white".
Of course, PWG members understand the term both technically and in it's
market use. In the past, we got away with assuming our spec reader could
also be as ambidextrous in their use of the terms.
When we came to the Counter Spec, where we are actually wanting to measure
the use of black colorant in exclusion of any other mixtures, I think we
were right to choose the term BLACK as it is more explicit than monochrome.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM STSM
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
----------------------------------------------
"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com>
04/25/2005 01:24 PM
To
Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, William A Wagner <wamwagner at comcast.net>
cc
wims at pwg.org
Subject
RE: WIMS> Black vs Mono
Hi Harry,
The Job Mon MIB (of which you are a co-editor) uses
the term monochrome once in the (badly written)
definition of 'Impressions'.
Later in HighlightColorImpressions, it uses the term
black (to describe the black colorant). There, it
does not refer to monochrome.
The Printer MIB uses the term monochrome once to say
"process color of 1 implies monochrome".
The Printer MIB uses the term black once to refer to
the colorant in prtMarkerColorantValue.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wims at pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims at pwg.org]On Behalf Of Harry Lewis
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 12:33 PM
To: William A Wagner
Cc: wims at pwg.org
Subject: RE: WIMS> Black vs Mono
The reasoning for using the term Black (vs Monochrome) sure seems identical
in either case (Images or Impressions)... just that Images are scanned and
Impressions are "deposited". If we have used both terms in past, normative
definitions, I guess we'll have to live with them. If not, we should think
seriously about converging on "Black" and making sure we embellish any
explanations where needed.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM STSM
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
----------------------------------------------
"William A Wagner" <wamwagner at comcast.net>
04/25/2005 10:12 AM ToHarry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS
cc<wims at pwg.org>
SubjectRE: WIMS> Black vs Mono
Harry,
I agree with your comments, and would argue that "Black" impressions is
preferable to "Monochrome" impressions. However, Ron did not refer to
impressions but rather to images. So this is not a question about what is
actually deposited on media, but what is defined in a job. If no color is
defined, then the image may be considered monochrome. A job where a cyan
image is defined would be treated as full color, even if it were the only
color. If this is Ron's reasoning, I think it makes sense. The question
then is if the use of "black" with impressions and "monochrome" with images
adds to understanding or to confusion.
Bill Wagner
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wims at pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims at pwg.org] On Behalf Of Harry
Lewis
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:21 AM
To: William A Wagner
Cc: wims at pwg.org
Subject: WIMS> Black vs Mono
As background... we discussed Black vs Mono at the Tokyo f2f. There is an
intuitive question of whether we are really trying to count BLACK (only)
pages vs Full Color or Spot Color pages or whether we are using Black as a
synonym for Monochrome vs Full Color. The result would be nearly the same
except that with the later one could ask how to count a completely Cyan
(unlikely) page, for example. In Tokyo we concluded that, indeed, we are
counting BLACK (only) pages. Aside from being inherently monochrome, Black
has a unique role in printing as many printers have various contone
components (of which Black is one) and spot colors but Black (only)
impressions may be accomplished without engaging the contone features or
pathway in some cases. Also, Monochrome and Black really ARE synonymous,
Black being so much so the majority of monochrome that other cases (Cyan
only, Magenta only) become pathological.
I know another thread ensued abut where and what documents already carry
these definitions but I wanted to share this "common sense" dialog which
occurred in Tokyo at the Last Call review also, prior to the next WIMS
teleconference.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM STSM
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
----------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/wims/attachments/20050427/43d8d992/attachment-0001.html