On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 15:25 +0300, Nina Jeliazkova wrote:
> chung wrote: 
> > On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 15:07 +0300, Nina Jeliazkova wrote:
> >   
> > > > Is there any kind of information in the representation of a model which
> > > > should be hidden/protected? I think the model representations as they
> > > > are now do not have anything about the model itself such as its
> > > > equation, coefficients etc...
> > > >   
> > > >       
> > > No, but you have this in PMML / TEXT representation .  I would say the
> > > current model API is a bit inconsistent, since RDF is actually a
> > > metadata of the model, not the model itself.  
> > > It might be reasonable to introduce additional URIs to retrieve model
> > > content, where applicable, e.g.  /model/1 retrieves metadata,
> > > but /model/1/content retrieves the model itself. 
> > >     
> > 
> > If you need model's metadata, ask for RDF otherwise ask for
> > application/xml and you get the PMML representation of the model, i.e.
> > its content. So I don't think we really need to separate these. What is
> > more there are models with no content such as leverages or even some
> > lazy ones (like kNN), so /model/{id}/content will be redundant.
> >   
> This is true in case policies are not involved - but policies don't
> account for media type - there is no way to protect PMML , but allow
> RDF representation.

Then just deny access to both RDF and PMML for a specific model. There
is no point in allowing the user to see which independent features are
involved in the model but not provide its PMML representation. Isn' it?
If it is, then we have to separate model meta from model content. But
again what about models with no content like some DoA?

Best regards,
Pantelis

> 
> Regards,
> Nina
> > Best Regards,
> > Pantelis
> >   
>