Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 16, 2022. It is now read-only.

Redundant format field in Model Runtime section #42

Open
duckontheweb opened this issue Sep 7, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

Redundant format field in Model Runtime section #42

duckontheweb opened this issue Sep 7, 2021 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
change Involves change to existing spec discussion needed Requires further discussion/input before implementing

Comments

@duckontheweb
Copy link
Collaborator

Model Runtime Fields: If type already needs to be set to docker or onnx, why provide a format field with the same values in properties?

Originally raised in #25

@duckontheweb duckontheweb added the change Involves change to existing spec label Sep 7, 2021
@duckontheweb duckontheweb self-assigned this Sep 7, 2021
@duckontheweb
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Originally, we had talked about supporting a variety of serialization and containerization formats. I originally intended the type field to be something like "containerized" or "serialized" and then the format field would be more specific within that (e.g. "onnx" or "pytorch" for the "serialization" type).

Perhaps we should move back to that structure given that there may be interest in adding new formats in the future (see #26)?

@duckontheweb duckontheweb added the discussion needed Requires further discussion/input before implementing label Sep 7, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
change Involves change to existing spec discussion needed Requires further discussion/input before implementing
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant