Meeting Notes, #36 Copenhagen, Denmark

Notes from the CIP4 General Meeting at the Copenhagen Interop, March 27 2019


Four members were present via GoTo Meeting:

Arturo Becerra

Gilbert Leong

Javier Morales

Pete Dyson Duplo

All others who were at the Interop attended the general meeting in person.

CEO Report

Anselm Scherl gave a summary of the issues surrounding CIP4 membership (122 members overall, broken down into various groups), citing possible reasons for member attrition. Additionally, tax status regarding the adjustment of taxes for the organization and the requirement of an additional VAT was also mentioned.

Technical Report

Rainer Prosi gave the Technical Report, with a brief summary of active work items, primarily focused on ICSs. Additionally, the following topics were mentioned:

  • PrintTalk

  • automated print procurement ICS

  • standard job submission for web to print

  • ICS quality control

  • color and general quality control

  • MIS

  • TSC reorganization, w/ Michel and Dennis being volunteers to read the specification

  • work with ISO TC130 w/ focus on PDF Metadata-ISO 21812-1

  • Web To Print and XJDF as potential mid-term ISO standards

  • Ghent WG

  • Alignment of Job Ticket related work

  • Ensure that GWG does not create a parallel Job Ticket

  • XJDF

  • Input from ICS Work

  • Quality Control

  • JDF 1.6

  • Print Talk, IP review 3 in progress

There was also mention of uploading any examples to Confluence, stressing that all technical discussions be carried out transparently.

Regarding Interops, it was mentioned that attendance is relatively stable at European meetings, and that a host is still being sought for the Interop to be held in the spring of 2020 (Pre Drupa).

Rainer encouraged participants to register early, as it would encourage others to sign up. Graham Mann suggested including a checkbox for the „maybe“ option on the registration form for Interops, as many who will eventually attend may not be certain about attending early on.

Rainer mentioned the Interop Matrix, and reminded participants to let Windsor Tanner know about any connectivity entries that were new or which needed to be changed.

Anselm spoke about CIP4 having set up a new, small membership class (for companies with fewer than 10 employees) , set to become active in July 2019. He then spoke about operational work DRUPA Fair in Düsseldorf from June 16-26, 2020.

Rainer mentioned a reduced fee for small companies and asked if anyone would be interested in getting a reduced fee for DRUPA.

Anselm spoke briefly about Operational Work (a D&O Policy with CHUBB has been signed and a financial audit completed), and then fielded questions.

Rainer asked if there were any more formal issues to be discussed and debated whether or not time was being wasted with the current schedule/cycle for the general meeting (once a year, at the spring Interops), or whether a phone-in option would be preferable. The decision was made to keep the current cycle for the general meetings.

Interop #37 in Namur

Rainer discussed dates for the next Interop (#37) in Namur. Koen mentioned the possibility of holidays coinciding with the dates for Namur which could complicate the arrangements for the meetings. There were no objections to the dates, and it was agreed that the Interop #37 in Namur will take place from October 21-25, in Namur.

Michel Hartmann suggested everyone click the „I will attend“ button immediately,

Rainer thanked everyone for attending, and then discussed briefly the details of the boat tour for the social event.

Issues discussed on Thursday, March 28 2019

ICS Formatting Guidelines were discussed, under

The following changes/questions were discussed:

Characters in attribute/element rows (any of ?,*,+ )

Decision: Add cardinality format as in specification but according to the rules of the ICS. 

Do not write: Cross out font for attribute or element name.

What is the standard text if the only requirements are "RTFM"?

Decision: only add text if it contains relevant additional information

Are the Attribute values in the description of the attribute or in separate rows?

Decision: separate rows.

How many examples should be inline rather than in a repository?

Decision: Only snippet illustrations

Should the example be complete or just valid illustrations?

Do we want individual sections to differentiate  m→w vs. m←w or do we allow rw  wr style tables + text?

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: Due to the amount of time, work and risk involved in generating drilled down ICSs, we will step back from the drilled down concept and release 1.6 ICSs- not drilled down- quickly.

XJDF Specific ICS Guidelines

Where do we disambiguate ResourceSet elements - separate tables or in the parent XJDF/ReourceInfo as lists?

Decision: Each ResourceSet/@Usage/@ProcessUsage is its own sub-chapter with a structure as -see below 

What is the structure and naming of the trinity (Resource, Part, <Specific resource>)

Decision: See „Expression of Partitioning“ above

PrintTalk Specific ICS Guidelines

What are the prefixes for XJDF and PTK traits in the table names?

What are the prefixes for XJDF and PTK traits in the table descriptions?

What are the prefixes for XJDF and PTK traits in the examples?

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,, was created following  A discussion that ensued about binary position. Also mentioned 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 and the new ticket – 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 ( 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.

Next one will have 2.1 and 2.0 JDF, because of multiple XJDFs.

Retain 2.0 Namespace is the right thing to do.

Rainer updated the ticket JDF-616,, and changed the focus on use of „SHALL“ in JDF-457,

Frederik 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 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,

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?

Rainer stressed knowing what‘s in the get-request, and what‘s in the response.

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

Decision: Rainer assigned himself PTK-90, with the following remark:

undo last comment:
see cxml and look at
ubscriptionChangeMessage document:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<cXML timestamp="2005-01-12T16:00:25-08:00" payloadID="1105574420906--451266344000288275@">
<Status code="200" text="OK"/>


PrintTalk issues marked for the Interop 


Rainer gave an example of having many Ids and Ref-Ids.

This issue was assigned to Michel, who will check with the e-procurement team at Flyeralarm to see how they track internal orders



is timing out standard behavior? Should the refusal just be removed?

The issue was reassigned to Rainer.

PTK-181, duplicate of PTK-185; both of these were sent to Graham

PTK-174 (Superseding),

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:

JDF issues, cut blocks, and anything on where we are with the ICSs, then a meeting review.

Issues discussed on Friday, March 29 2019

Discussion of sections/ cut blocks in gang jobs

JDF-618, at

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,

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, regarding Uniqueness Scope.

Discussion of Additional ICSs

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 

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, 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 (, and that fixes could be „cherry picked“. Furthermore, this could be downloaded as part of the unit test, making them more complete.


Rainer checked this once again to determine what needed to be completed; Jean-Marc confirmed it could go to drafting.

Decision: put to drafting and discuss at next technical meeting


No placed objects individually in stripping style layout.

Jean-Marc described front-back alignment on the white board. Rainer stipulated that this could be done with explicit definition of a page index, and referenced the XJDF Spec 2.1 Draft-20190313, build 1170, to illustrate SignatureCell (Sec. 6.6.1), doing expansion on one’s own.

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.


Rainer mentioned the philosophical nature of this issue and discussed whether or not everything should go into the Audit Pool, or to distinguish instances where this is not the case.

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.


No changing semantics of a key on the fly. External ID is same as the old JDF product ID.


It was decided that Graham is to correct this issue, which relates to JDF-616,


A discussion of preferred methods ensued (implicit vs. explicit)

Following a discussion held primarily between Michel and Stefan, the decision was that

this SHOULD be as sparse as possible.


Interaction of Face and Part/Side

Rainer pointed out an example from Table 6.148: Defect element, in the specification 2.1-DRAFT.

Decision: /@Face SHALL NOT be present if the resource is partitioned by Side. SIDE is preferred for sheets.


Rainer suggested expanding MediaTypeDetails and referenced page 71 in the specification to review MediaType w.r.t. adhesiveness.

Further discussion continued regarding the extension of MediaTypeDetails.

The decision was made to assign the issue to Michel


The decision was made to use paper due to the fuzziness of the boundary with paper.


This issue was reopened, with Michel and Rainer discussing the content of headers

This issue is a clone of

The decision was to leave this as is, for technical reasons, as more methods in JDF are not needed.


Rainer referenced Table 5.27, ImageSetting, and discussed ColorantControl.

JDF-528: has also been completed

JDF-457: previously discussed in the meeting


FileSpec Element (Header)

The issue was moved back to drafting.

JDF-399 – Those responsible for this issue were not in attendance at the time it was being discussed


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. 


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-591 – lower case p vs. Upper case P

Decision: Update list and internet to camelCase, no errata required for these types of things.


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.


Rainer assigned this one to himself and placed it in drafting. 


Rainer commented to potentially add docsize/setsize to RunList and placed it in drafting.


Placed in drafting, though still unfixed in description, but fixed in table.

JDF-626: In drafting


Decided that it should be discussed within Quality Control workgroup



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.



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.


Moved to drafting


Moved to drafting


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)