We would prefer a job ticket approach (and have been lobbying for one in
the PWG Semantic Model, including a submission for a simple way for IPP to
carry a job ticket and the recommendation that we consider a simplified
JDF JT as the basis... thereby leveraging expended effort). So I support
Bob Taylor's recommendations, in general, and discussions regarding
optimization. Several comments, however.
1. Our proposal to add "-actual" (to the existing cadra of IPP
"-supported", "-default", "-ready", "-requested" etc. attributes) is
intended as a SIMPLE solution which could be supported in v1 of the
Semantic Model and PSI.
2. At today's SM conference call we said we will NOT try and define a Job
Ticket for v1 (wise decision, as I'm sure we've barely begun to imagine
all the nuances of JT and got stuck, almost immediately on the question of
Job vs Doc JTs).
3. Assuming it will take a while for us to hash out the ideal JT for
office applications I would like to see us go forward with the rather
benign "-actual" proposal
4. Back on the JT thread... I do NOT like the streamlining proposed
(below) by Tom. Specifically, if we limit Job Processing Actuals to only
ones deferred from attributes declared during job creation, we will MISS
information if, for example, the PDL had embedded commands that resulted
in an action that was not requested. (ex. Job creation was silent on
copies, the PDL called for 3 copies). Our view is we WANT to know exactly
what HAPPENED... (we care less why).
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
"Hastings, Tom N" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
Sent by: owner-sm@pwg.org
10/10/2002 05:38 PM
To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "TAYLOR,BOB
(HP-Vancouver,ex1)" <robert_b_taylor@hp.com>
cc: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, "Zehler, Peter"
<PZehler@crt.xerox.com>, sm@pwg.org, printing-jobticket@freestandards.org
Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes
I like Bob Taylor's idea of using the same PWG Semantic Model Job and
Document Processing attributes (probably not PWG SM Description
attributes) in a different context to indicate what really happened,
rather than inventing more xxx-actual attributes. The PWG Semantic Model
already uses this approach for Job Creation, in that Document Processing
attributes can be supplied at the Job Level in the Create-Job operation
and in each Send-Document operation. The IPP Document object extension
proposes re-using the same IPP Job Template attributes as Document
Template attributes, rather than inventing new "document-xxx" Document
Template attributes. (Also the IPP "document-overrides" and
"page-overrides" collection attributes re-use the existing Job Template
attributes for each override collection value, rather than inventing new
name mangling for them).
However, I'd also like to suggest a streamlining, by having the new Job
Processing Actuals be only the ones that deferred from the ones submitted
in the Job Creation Request. This would do two good things: Be much more
compact and provide a useful indication to the user about what happened
differently from what he requested. I suspect that any defaulting that
the Printer supplied would wind up in the Actuals group, but be of the
form "xxx", not "xxx-default". If the PDL had a different value and the
Printer didn't override the PDL, then the actual should be the value from
the PDL.
Of course, the Job Processing, Job Description, Document Processing, and
Document Description attributes that the user submitted should also be in
the Job History in just the form that he submitted (as in the current IPP
Job History for Job Template attributes and soon to be Document Template
attributes - see RFC 2911 section 4.3.7.2).
The FSG Job Ticket API wants to store results in the Job Ticket eventually
as well.
Comments?
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 09:37
To: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)
Cc: McDonald, Ira; Zehler, Peter; sm@pwg.org
Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes
I'm not opposed to new operations but I'll observe that multiple
attributes is in keeping with the way IPP is currently structured.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
"TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1)" <robert_b_taylor@hp.com>
10/03/2002 09:42 AM
To: "Zehler, Peter" <PZehler@crt.xerox.com>, Harry
Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>,
sm@pwg.org
cc:
Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes
I think I prefer the more "operations" or structurally-oriented approach.
The model of having multiple attributes that describe the same "feature"
in multiple states (capabilities, intent, process, logging/audit), etc.
seems fragile and error-prone (hence the current "process" vs. "product"
discrepancies in CIP4 ...). I'd rather have us define the feature once,
and then define operations or structures that apply the workflow stage
semantics.
bt
-----Original Message-----
From: Zehler, Peter [mailto:PZehler@crt.xerox.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:43 AM
To: 'Harry Lewis'; McDonald, Ira
Cc: sm@pwg.org
Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes
Harry,
I like the concept. I prefer "actual" to "chosen". Have you considered
new operations (e.g. "GetActualJobAttributes" "GetJobsHistory") to
accomplish the same thing. It would make Printers that implement a job
receipt more explicit. There would be no need for all the new attributes
(i.e. "ZZZ-actual"). On the other hand using attributes instead of new
operations does have the benefit of being able to retrieve both the
requested and actual attributes together and having a static
representation that differentiates the two. Perhaps using both the
"actual" attributes and new operations might be more explicit.
Of course there will probably need to be some housekeeping attributes
added to the printer for history management/configuration. I would prefer
that something like this be documented separately and referenced in the
PWG Semantic Model. The document would probably be an extension to IPP.
Pete
Peter Zehler
XEROX
Xerox Architecture Center
Email: PZehler@crt.xerox.com
Voice: (585) 265-8755
FAX: (585) 265-8871
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 128-30E
Webster NY, 14580-9701
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:57 PM
To: McDonald, Ira
Cc: sm@pwg.org
Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes
I'm fine with "chosen" vs. "actual"... not as concerned about the name as
the concept. In this case, actual might differ from requested due to
something like a PDL override (so "chosen" seems to fit) or it COULD
differ due to some circumstance (like the job was aborted prior to all
copies completing) in which case "actual" seems more apropos.
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>
10/02/2002 07:30 PM
To: Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, sm@pwg.org
cc:
Subject: RE: SM> Job "Actual" attributes
Hi Harry,
For what it's worth...
Printer MIB used (from DPA I think...) the terminology of
'Declared' or 'Requested' (for the input) and 'Chosen'
(for what you're calling 'Actual' below).
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:56 PM
To: sm@pwg.org
Subject: SM> Job "Actual" attributes
In IPP, PWG Semantic Model and PSI we have Job Template attributes with
"sister" (supported, default and ready) Printer Description attributes.
When
discussing the purpose of a "Job Ticket" in the semantic model, we often
refer to Job Template attributes as the "job ticket" as these carry
production intent. By definition, when queried, Job Template attributes
must
return the value associated with each attribute during submission. Thus,
there is no way to query a job (or document) and learn WHAT ACTUALLY
HAPPENED w.r.t. any particular attributed (ex. copies). This is covered by
the JDF job ticket but we have said JDF is too workflow oriented for
(initial) inclusion into the PWG Semantic Model.
I would like to propose a solution - the addition of a group of Job
Description attributes referred to as "-actual". These could be extensions
to the group of Job Progress attributes or a separate grouping of Job
Actual
(or "Job Completion") attributes. I know, in IPP proper, we don't have the
notion of job "history" (the job "disappears" as soon as it has completed)
so "actuals" would not be very useful. But in the semantic model and PSI
we're trying to overcome this. To the extent that we are reluctant to
embrace a full fledged job ticket, the addition of "-actual" attributes
should go a long way toward providing much of the essential JT
functionality
that was previously missing for non-produciton environments.
For example:
+===================+======================+
| Job Template |Job Description:Actual|
| Attribute | Value Attribute |
+===================+======================+
| copies | copies-actual |
| (integer (1:MAX)) | (integer (1:MAX)) |
+-------------------+----------------------+
| finishings | finishings-actual |
|(1setOf type2 enum)|(1setOf type2 enum) |
+-------------------+----------------------+
| sides | sides-actual |
| (type2 keyword) | (type2 keyword) |
+-------------------+----------------------+
| number-up | number-up-actual |
| (integer (1:MAX)) | (integer (1:MAX)) |
+-------------------+----------------------+
| orientation- |orientation-requested-|
| requested | actual |
| (type2 enum) | (type2 enum) |
+-------------------+----------------------+
| media | media-actual |
| (type3 keyword | | (type3 keyword | |
| name) | name) |
+-------------------+----------------------+
| printer-resolution| printer-resolution- |
| (resolution) | actual |
| | (resolution) |
+-------------------+----------------------+
| print-quality | print-quality-actual |
| (type2 enum) | (type2 enum) |
+-------------------+----------------------+
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 11 2002 - 01:16:28 EDT