ngff
ngff copied to clipboard
Proposal: Add UUID field to multiscale objects
In order to uniquely identify the images that are being generated, this change proposes that a UUID should be included with each multiscale. The UUID can either be generated at creation or perhaps copied from an existing array if all meta(data) is identical (e.g. a rechunking).
To view: http://api.csswg.org/bikeshed/?url=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/joshmoore/ngff/uuid/latest/index.bs
"In order to uniquely identify the images that are being generated"
from the PR - It may be obvious, but maybe that (or something similar) should be included in the spec.
How is this likely to happen? Not via any JSON schema id
or ref
, but simply by some user's code or unstructured csv/file/DB/notes ?
Pushed.
How is this likely to happen? Not via any JSON schema id or ref, but simply by some user's code or unstructured csv/file/DB/notes ?
How do you mean, @will-moore?
Where will I use the UUID?
E.g. In a description of another NGFF Image This image was processed from Image "urn:uuid:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf6"
or in a JSON collection: [{"id": "urn:uuid:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf6"}, ...]
or is it just not known just now, but it seems like it could be useful in the future?
On the feature itself, I am also in favor or introducing some semantics allowing to identify of these objects. I can imagine several use cases as these objects are made available on object stored and potentially replicated in many places to allow some form of integrity check.
A secondary proposal included this PR is the refactoring the definition of the multiscales
dictionary to use a bullet-point list with clear MAY/SHOULD/MUST mapping - see http://api.csswg.org/bikeshed/?url=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/joshmoore/ngff/uuid/latest/index.bs#multiscale-md.
The current plate specification uses an vairant with a list of definitions e.g. as in https://ngff.openmicroscopy.org/latest/#plate-md. However, this currently lacks a clear expression requirement level and I have on my todo to review this paragraph.
I do not have a strong preference on one style vs the other (bullet point vs definition list) but I think it would make sense to unify. Adding a bit to the complexity, some of the keys include are themselves dictionaries and the specification needs to define sub-keys. I assume the advantage of the current proposal is that this would be simply represented as indented bullet points