Hi,
My thoughts on Mike's comments are inline below.
Cheers,
- Ira
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:26 AM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
> > Paul,
> >
> > Some quick feedback:
> >
> > 1. Based on the PWG review, I thought we were going to remove most of
> the history information in the charter (and place the history on the SM
> pwg.org web page?)
>
<ira>
Agree w/ Mike - please delete lines 28-73 of "-rev" version entirely.
History does not belong in a current WG charter.
</ira>
>> > 2. PWG Imaging Job Ticket was going to match up with SM 3.0, so
> shouldn’t it be “PWG Imaging Job Ticket v3.0” with
> “wd-smimagejobticket30-yyyymmdd” for the filename?
>> After re-reading my message, maybe just “wd-smjobticket30-yyyymmdd” for
> the filename.
>> <ira>
Reluctantly agree - I don't like tying versions of different specs
together, but this
is a special case (i.e., the job ticket spec merely expands the detail of
the main
SM 3.0 model spec).
I also agree with Mike's simpler suggested filename
"wd-smjobticket30-yyyymmdd".
</ira>
> > 3. OOS-3 would seem to preclude incorporation of the Cloud Imaging
> Model into SM 3.0, which is something I thought we wanted?
>
<ira>
I disagree w/ Mike that OOS-3 precludes Cloud imaging services - it's meant
to
just disallow defining new workflow languages.
</ira>
>> > 4. All of the OOS should be worded as “Definition of xxx” instead of “Do
> not define xxx”; otherwise it doesn’t make sense (it is out of scope to not
> define any service management …, etc.)
>
<ira>
Agree with Mike.
</ira>
>
> > 5. JobTicket-1 milestone should probably be before SM3-2 since SM 3.0
> will depend on the Imaging Job Ticket, right?
>
<ira>
Agree. - Although Imaging Job Ticket will depend on SM 3.0 (because it's an
expansion
on the details in SM 3.0), the Prototype draft, should be complete and
TESTED before
approving the main SM 3.0 spec. Note that there is a *missing* JobTicket-2
milestone.
</ira>
>
> > 6. Not sure how interop will work, but based on experience in IPP you
> should have at least a year between prototype draft and interop (and in
> practice 2 years seems to be the timeframe for popular specs…)
>
<ira>
Agree w/ Mike about moving the SM 3.0 interop date out.
Note that doing WSDL/SOAP interop is a lot trickier than doing IPP interop
- various
SOAP libraries have a large number of compatibility issues (and native OS
libraries
cause further problems).
Also, so far no vendor has announced implementation of any PWG SM web
service.
</ira>
> >
> >
> > On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:09 AM, Paul Tykodi <ptykodi at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> The PDF links didn't copy and past correctly in the previous e-mail.
> Corrected links as follows:
> >>
> >> http://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/sm3/wd/wd-sm30-charter-20131119.pdf> >>
> >> http://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/sm3/wd/wd-sm30-charter-20131119-rev.pdf> >>
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >>
> >> /Paul
> >> --
> >> Paul Tykodi
> >> Principal Consultant
> >> TCS - Tykodi Consulting Services LLC
> >>
> >>
> >> Tel/Fax: 603-343-1820
> >> Mobile: 603-866-0712
> >> E-mail: ptykodi at yahoo.com> >> WWW: http://www.tykodi.com> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 10:05 AM, Paul Tykodi <ptykodi at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> The latest draft of the Semantic Model Work Group Charter has been
> posted. It includes all of the requested updates from the last PWG F2F
> meeting and it is now ready for PWG Steering Committee approval.
>>