inspectrum
inspectrum copied to clipboard
miek
sigmf: use core:label instead of core:description in annotations
Currently based on #202
Show a warning when encountering meta data which uses core:description in annotations.
Show core:comment if core:label is not found.
Closes #199
This is something that will most likely need to wait on sigmf v1.0 and the corresponding libsigmf release, where the core issue (a now obsolete annotation field) will be addressed. In general the label field is the correct one.
I ended up making part of this change myself as part of merging #202, as I'd done a few other changes that conflict.
I don't think we need to maintain support for core:description as it was never official & never saw an inspectrum release. I agree on core:comment potentially being chaotic too, so I'd rather keep it simple and only ever display core:label (and down the line, look into some interactive way of bringing up more information about a particular annotation).
@miek yea this is not a proud point for sigmf...it was adopted without official support. There exists a tremendous amount of core:description labeled datasets out there though, so IMO it would be nice to do at least core:description if core:label is missing so all this existing data doesn't render without context, and it would be better to show this field if it is missing a label.
Just my $0.02.
If it's not too much trouble, as @jacobagilbert mentioned, there is some large datasets and other tools that use core:description, it would be great to keep support for it, even though it was never official.
I've rebased the PR, but the logic is still the "original" one, preferring "description" over "label" over "comment".
I understand the discussion at the moment more like: "label" over "description" (maybe with a warning). Is that currently what people are thing about?
Are there any other external tool which rely on the "description" field? If not I'd rather urge people to change their files...
@schneider42 Here is what I am doing on my fork: https://github.com/jacobagilbert/inspectrum/commit/b40042899b88f4b6812e4866010fdc6f56078651
With #215 incoming, I consider this obsolete. @jacobagilbert I'll open a new PR just with your change.