On Aug 19, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Zehler, Peter wrote:
> All,
>> An initial draft of the PWG Semantic Model Print Job Ticket (PJT) has been posted. It is available at
> <ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/wd/wd-PwgPrintJobTicket-20110818.pdf>
>> The specification is based on v1.140 of the PWG Semantic Model Schema. See the Semantic Model page for links to the files and to browse an online html version. The Semantic Model web page is available at: <http://www.pwg.org/mfd> (Note: if version 1.140 is not show try refreshing the page.)
>> The first review of this specification will occur at the Semantic Model Working Groups 9/1/11 teleconference at 3 pm EDT. I’ll send out a meeting notice closer to the date with all the necessary information.
Not sure if I'll be able to call in, but here are some initial comments from a first read:
- General: Looks like the footer has a lot of extra whitespace in it?
- Section 1, Introduction
- You jump right in to PrintJobTicket, but never introduce the semantic model (aside from the abstract) - I think it would be useful and appropriate to provide a paragraph or two (and maybe a diagram?) providing the scope of the SM and where PrintJobTicket fits.
- Some mixed usage of PrintJob, Print Job, PrintJobTicket, Print Job Ticket, etc.
- Sections 5.x, 6.x, and 7.x: Datatypes
- I think we do want text here
- Section 8: Print Job Ticket Elements’ Semantic information
- Wouldn't Table 1 be better broken up into Description and Processing elements, and put near the fugures? For example, right now if I look at Figure 15 (job processing) I need to search for OutputBin within the document to find out what it means and what the accepted values are.
- Section 9: PrintServiceCapabilities
- Table 2: There is at least one place where the capabilities element has a different name than the job ticket element (e.g. Resolutions vs. Resolution). I don't think we need to add a column, but perhaps we could add the job ticket element in parenthesis when the names don't match?
- Section 10: Simple PrintJobTicket
- According to the semantic definition, MediaType is part of MediaCol and not a top-level element in PrintDocumentProcessing.
- However, the current schema shows MediaType as an optional top-level element in a sequence with Media/MediaSource, which are under a choice???
- That doesn't match the IPP definition of media, media-type, or media-source, either... Both media-type and media-source need to be in media-col for IPP, with media/media-col being mutually-exclusive (a choice in XML schema)
________________________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
--
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/ipp/attachments/20110822/49f5f5e1/attachment-0001.html>