...
Issues discussed on 28 March, 2019
ICS Formatting Guidelines were discussed, under
https://confluence.cip4.org/display/WJT/ICS+Formatting+Guidelines
The following changes/questions were discussed:
Characters in attribute/element rows (any of ?,*,+ )
...
Do not write: Cross out font for attribute or element name.
What is the standard text if the only requirements are "RTFM"?
...
Decision: Every table should be dedicated to the manager or worker as the writer. No mixed wr rw rows are allowed.
How much "How to read this document" should be copied to each ICS?
Decision: Add roughly 1 or 2 intro pages including a table of interpretation of ←; !, *,+,?
Should include definition of missing rows (r?w? as default)
Expression of Partitioning
Decision: See structure in QualityControl ICS for the general direction
What should we do with element links that reference external references?
Idea: Think about hiring a freelancer to generate cross reference tooling to any element or attribute or XPath from ICS to specifications
How should levels be used?
Decision: Use framemaker feature "conditional text" for levels and generate 1 document with at most 2*N tables per element for N levels
JDF Specific ICS Guidelines
How to reference other ICSs
...
Decision: Each ResourceSet/@Usage/@ProcessUsage is its own sub-chapter with a structure as -see belowbelow
What is the structure and naming of the trinity (Resource, Part, <Specific resource>)
...
Decision: PrintTalk is always the default namespace, XJDF is always written with the perfix "xjdf".
Should Manager and Worker be renamed to Print Buyer and Print Provider as in the spec?
Decision: rename Print Buyer and Print Provider.
An Issue, https://jira.cip4.org/browse/JDF-635, was created following A discussion that ensued about binary position. Also mentioned https://jira.cip4.org/browse/JDF-626 in conjunction with this.
Following the lunch break, examples of implicit and explicit „inserts“ supported by XJDF were shared by Jean Marc- the ICS examples resulted in a very extensive discussion,
primarily between Rainer and Jean Marc. Following a short break, continuation of the ICS discussion continued.
Discussion of ICS ICP 1.5
Discussion of workers and managers
Level 2, Level 3, Level 1 rearrangement- Graham will implement this. Michel says use JDF project for this, Graham mentions changing the partner banner as an example, saying it will require TSC checking the changes. The result of this is Updating ICP ICS to 1.6- see tickets https://jira.cip4.org/browse/ICS-28 and the new ticket https://jira.cip4.org/browse/ICS-93 – this was assigned to Graham and provides sufficient enough information for him to move forward.
Print condition in XJDF- Rainer not certain that should be done here.
Rainer checked JDF-617 (https://jira.cip4.org/browse/JDF-617) to recall what he‘s done up to this point w.r.t. coloring order, etc. More detail at next technical workgroup.
Namespace and versions for XJDF
Rainer has begun building examples, pain in the neck if a change involves updating your schema url. No more mixed version because no more mixed JDF nodes.
...
Laurent presented an example of a schema with the prefix clearly indicating an added extension (new schema created, essentially). Rainer mentions that creating four or five additional namespaces may not be for everyone. Rainer pointed out, as an example, that this is a hassle with PrintTalk if you don‘t say it‘s the same namespace.
Dennis commented: “if it ain‘t broke, don‘t fix it”.
Rainer deleted the „...and SHALL...“ part of the ticket in JDF-457. Michel and Graham preferred replacing SHALL with SHOULD in this context. Dennis made the point that valid xml isn‘t always the best, as it‘s not readable (Michel said mentioned that it should be used for debugging only, because it would otherwise be confusing).
Discussion of PrintTalk and related tickets
rejected JIRA issue for GetPendingRequest for Cloud- PTK-90, https://jira.cip4.org/browse/PTK-90
Rainer wants to reopen this issue. Need to decide: does what comes back from cloud remain a request, or should the response be added because it‘s a different protocol?
...
Michel wasn‘t sure if something like this should be part of PrintTalk, but Rainer thinks it should be standardized.
Cxml: there was a PrintTalk element that uses cxml structures from about 15 years ago.
Michel suggested creating a Jira ticket and elaborating upon what‘s in PTK-90
...
The issue was reassigned to Rainer.
PTK-181, duplicate of PTK-185; both of these were sent to Graham
PTK-174 (Superseding), https://jira.cip4.org/browse/PTK-174
It was noted that Jim Mekkis will have to be present in order to continue discussion of the issue.
Reviewed what was left for tomorrow, in particular:
...
Discussion of sections/ cut blocks in gang jobs
JDF-618, at https://jira.cip4.org/browse/JDF-618
Rainer and Stefan discussed how many jobs it takes, and that you have a fixed finishing size.
Rainer wanted to simply add DescriptiveName and explained on the white board that there is a hierarchy of blocks.
Discussion continued, with Michel explaining what he didn’t like about CutBlocks, namely, that there aren‘t really any cuts there.
Stefan (Meissner) explained Imposition and position to Rainer on the white board, with the output as positions, containing CutBlocks.
Rainer remarked that it has to be reviewed in sheet optimizing params and created a new issue based on this: „Add section support to SheetOptimization“ (JDF-638, https://jira.cip4.org/browse/JDF-638)
Additionally, Michel would prefer to get rid of the descriptive names.
Rainer indicated that moving this issue into SheetOptimization is the right thing to do.
There was further discussion w.r.t. cutblock, and wether the name could be extended so that it is unique to the job, but Rainer said it‘s not even unique within the document. The decision was made to issue a new ticket, in addition to https://jira.cip4.org/browse/JDF-638, regarding Uniqueness Scope.
Discussion of Additional ICSs
Rainer Rainer mentioned additional ICSs, reiterating that they only need to be copied (every individual ICS) into FrameMaker, as there is no drill down. Graham will look into the time required to accomplish this.
Koen mentioned the ICS Components, and updating them on the link at
https://jira.cip4.org/plugins/servlet/project-config/ICS/administer-components
Discussion then ensued as to which ICS Components to keep and which ones to discard.
Rainer inquired about missing components and created a new one, „LayCrimp ICS (1.6)“
Dennis went through a list of components and verified them with Rainer, noting that there were many that hadn’t yet been published for version 1.6.
Graham mentioned the ones currently in progress and briefly gave information on the status of his progress.
Rainer mentioned that only updating the tag of the ICS version is what he wants to do at this point, then get as many 1.6 versions out as possible Additionally, he mentioned that Base JMF and also ICS is something that will be shared at the TSC.
Following a short break, there was a brief discussion of plans for the final dinner.
Discussion of JDF Issues
Discussion of JDF-627, https://jira.cip4.org/browse/JDF-627: Graham and Michel noted that the fewer lines the schema has, the smaller the likelihood of errors would be. Fix Version/s became 2.0 Schema, as it should be fixed as well (doesn‘t currently match 2.0 spec.)
Michel mentioned that the Git repository is being adjusted and explained that the master branch is currently 2.1, but will be corrected at a later time.
Dennis inquired about new 2.0 schemas for errata updates and whether they had been published- this is currently in progress.
Discussion ensued about the errata page itself having at least a link to the newest matching schema.
Michel said there should only be that one URL to the schema. Rainer mentioned that the latest version of the 2.0 branch should be available at the CIP4 CDN (cdn.cip4.org), and that fixes could be „cherry picked“. Furthermore, this could be downloaded as part of the unit test, making them more complete.
JDF-625, https://jira.cip4.org/browse/JDF-625
...
Decision: put to drafting and discuss at next technical meeting
JDF-624, https://jira.cip4.org/browse/JDF-624
...
Additionally, it was suggested to first write examples, with Jean-Marc in agreement.
There was mention of BinderySignature.
The ticket was edited to indicate that additional Metadata for SignatureCell may be needed.
JDF-619, https://jira.cip4.org/browse/JDF-619
...
Further discussion regarding the content of Audit Pool continued.
Following a brief break, the conclusion was made that all modifications SHOULD go to the Audit Pool, with some disagreement regarding the use of “SHOULD” and “SHALL”. There was also mention of backwards compatibility with JDF in this context, and that identity type data information would be removed from the schema.
JDF-601, https://jira.cip4.org/browse/JDF-601
No changing semantics of a key on the fly. External ID is same as the old JDF product ID.
This is TSC-Verify
JDF-599, https://jira.cip4.org/browse/JDF-599
It was decided that Graham is to correct this issue, which relates to JDF-616, https://jira.cip4.org/browse/JDF-616
JDF-598, https://jira.cip4.org/browse/JDF-598
...
thisSHOULD be as sparse as possible.
JDF-597, https://jira.cip4.org/browse/JDF-597
...
Decision: /@Face SHALL NOT be present if the resource is partitioned by Side. SIDE is preferred for sheets.
JDF-595, https://jira.cip4.org/browse/JDF-595
...
The decision was made toassign the issue to Michel
JDF-569, https://jira.cip4.org/browse/JDF-569
The decision was made to use paper due to the fuzziness of the boundary with paper.
JDF-572, https://jira.cip4.org/browse/JDF-572
...
The decision was to leave this as is, for technical reasons, as more methods in JDF are not needed.
JDF-538, https://jira.cip4.org/browse/JDF-538
Rainer referenced Table 5.27, ImageSetting, and discussed ColorantControl.
JDF-528: has also been completed
JDF-457: previously discussed in the meeting
JDF-425, https://jira.cip4.org/browse/JDF-425
...
The issue was moved back to drafting.
JDFJDF-399 – Those responsible for this issue were not in attendance at the time it was being discussed
JDF-69, https://jira.cip4.org/browse/JDF-69
Rainer moved to create a new issue without drill down.
The discussion of JDF issues also turned briefly to related PrintTalk issues:
PTK-144, requiring input from Jim, as well as PTK-173 as well. Rainer mentioned that superseding has to be discussed in the PrintTalk meeting, w.r.t. RFQs.
Further discussion between Michel, Dennis, and Rainer on superseding and cancellation rules continued, with mention of ReplaceID and PurchaseOrder.
PTK-174, https://jira.cip4.org/browse/PTK-174
Decision: Quotation/Quote/RFQ @ReplaceID should be removed, with the issue being assigned to Graham.
Miscellaneous Discussion- Orphan issues
Miscellaneous issues were discussed, in particular:
JDF-505505
JDF-591 – lower case p vs. Upper case P
Decision: Update list and internet to camelCase, no errata required for these types of things.
JDF-596
Discussion of CYMK and Fogre 51 & 52- Rainer went to the whiteboard to demonstrate gamut and the color space, in discussion with Stefan.
There was more discussion regarding PrintStandard and the expected gamut of the output device(s). Rainer assigned this issue to himself.
JDF-598
Rainer assigned this one to himself and placed it in drafting.
JDF-622
Rainer commented to potentially add docsize/setsize to RunList and placed it in drafting.
JDF-623
Placed in drafting, though still unfixed in description, but fixed in table.
JDF-626
Drafting
: In drafting
JDF-630
Decided that it should be discussed within Quality Control workgroup
JDF-633
Discussion:
Glossary terms should be there as references to the glossary, e.t.c.- there should always be cross reference links. Graham suggested creating a conditional glossary.
JDF-634
Ron‘s issue
JDF-637
Placed in drafting. Michel commented that it was strange to put this issue in drafting, as there were only two comments in the description. Rainer suggested moving appropriate attributes from InsertSheet to SheetActivation.
JDF-638
Moved to drafting
JDF-639
Moved to drafting
JDF-640
The issue was moved to the status of „minor“ by Rainer, but Michel stated that it shouldn‘t be a minor issue.
Further comments from Rainer: step 1 Partition keys. Attribute called FooName, FooID, and FooRef
(related to XJDF-1288)