Subject: Directory Entry Schema

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 11:08:10 -0500

Classification:
Prologue:
Epilogue:

---------------------- Forwarded by Roger K Debry/Boulder/IBM on 01/19/96 08:37
AM ---------------------------

        ipp-owner @ pwg.org
        11/18/96 09:46 PM

To: ipp @ pwg.org@internet
cc:
Subject: Directory Entry Schema

>>Keith Carter and I met and we want to run the following issues by the
>>team:

>>We want to have a Location attribute. We propose that this should be a "
>>a free form string that can contain any site specific location information."
>>How should filtered searches work on values of this attribute?

Scott, I assume that you are talking about adding the existing printer location
attribute (section 6.4.2) to the directory schema, not inventing a new
attribute.
Perhaps we could recommend that attribute values, although being free-form text,
be written as dotted values, e.g. Provo.Building3.floor2, that way installation
specific filtering (e.g. find all printers in building3) could perhaps be done
more easily.

>>We want to introduce a new attribute callled Print Quality. "This indicates
>>a somewhat subjective evaluation of the overall printing quality: "high",
>>"medium", or "low"  "  ISSUE:  Does this subsume the need for Resolution
>>and Speed?

Again I assume that you are adding the existing print qualities supported
attribute to the directory schema, not inventing a new attribute. I think
that quality is an attribute that can often be orthogonal to speed and
resolution. For example, some printers reduce the qulaity by putting down
less toner while still printing at the same speed and resolution.

>>We want to introduce a new attribute called Cost.  "This indicates a
>>somewhat subjective evaluation of the overall cost of printing at this
>>printer: "high", "medium", or "low".   "  ISSUE: Is this a good thing or not?

This makes sense to me when in an intranet environment where controlling costs
would be important.  In an internet environment where I might be paying for a
print job at Kinkos, for example, I think we might want some alternative
schemes.
One idea might be to allow a print job to be sumbitted with a "bid" attribute.
The bid attribute says "don't print this, but tell me what it will cost to print
this job".

In an intranet environment would we want more granularity than high-medium-low?
For example, let an installation define the number of "chits" required to print
on any given printer, then put this number in the cost attribute. Thus if I had
a templare for printing color foils, it might cost 10 "chits", while printing
two-up on a high speed fanfold printer costs 1 "chit". Chits don't necesarily
have to relate to exact costs, but can provide a relative cost. We'd probably
want to associate these with templates, since cost is a funcntion of the media,
n-up, use of color, and so on.

>>We propose a Fonts Supported attribute which is the same as the
>>fonts-supported attribute in the Printer object.  ISSUE: Do you agree that
>>this should be in the directory entry.  Some studies have shown that
>>users want to search for printers based on this attribute.

Could there be some way of indicating some "standard" font sets rather than
enumerate the entire list in the printer (including fonts that could be
downloaded transparently from a server)? Would a lagre enterprise want to
have installation defined "sets"?

>>If we keep Maximum Speed should it be moved to "high, med low"??

>>We propose a P1284 Device ID not a plug and play Id -- the plug and play
>>id can be created from this.  ISSUE: Does this subsume the need for
Make, Model, and Type??

************************************************************
Scott A. Isaacson
Print Services Consulting Engineer
Novell Inc., 122 E 1700 S, Provo, UT 84606
V: (801) 861-7366, (800) 453-1267 x17366
F: (801) 861-4025, E: [email-masked]
W: http://www.novell.com
************************************************************

---

From: [email-masked] (Caruso,Angelo)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 12:54:04 PST

Scott,

In my opinion subjective attributes are not very useful. Print quality, 
 for example, is so subjective that 'high', 'medium', and 'low' just 
 don't cut it. Also, a user's perception of 'high' or 'low' print 
 quality evolves with the state of the art. Why not specify objective 
 attributes like resolution, process (e.g. ink-jet, laser, etc.), color 
 capability (e.g. monchrome, full process color, etc.)? Cost is also 
 highly subjective (one man gathers what another man spills). Marketers 
 are constantly manipulating cost-per-page estimates in order to 
 position a product more competitively (some include only toner, some 
 include other supplies as well). Costs also evolve very rapidly over 
 time. Who would make these subjective judgements?

My two cents per page :)
Angelo Caruso
Xerox Corp.

----------
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: "Scott A. Isaacson"
Subject: Directory Entry Schema
Date: Monday, November 18, 1996 7:18PM

---

From: [email-masked] (Jeff Copeland)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 96 10:04:41 MST

>  time. Who would make these subjective judgements?

First, you can make cost objective by using the actual cost, if you're
in a commercial environment: e.g., at Kinko's, it's what the customer
gets charged.  Otherwise, ignore it, or use an arbitrary measure ---
the 300 dpi monochrome is 25 units per page, but the 600dpi color is
150 units per page.

As I suggested yesterday during the conference call, there is a way
of overlaying the subjective and objective criteria.  We provide
objective measures of resolution, colors, process, speed and cost.
Then, we can overlay those with a user or administrator programmable
high, medium, low measure.  That is, we specify in the browser setup
what the allowable range is for each level.  The H/M/L measure
can drift over time, as mean printer speed and quality increases,
by resetting those ranges in the browser setup.  

We can also provide a single H/M/L "quality" (or pick a better
adjective) measure, where high is a combination of >600dpi + >2colors +
laser or dye sublimation, for example.  This means the printer tells
us the objective measures, but the administrator's agent tells us
the subjective ones.