[ImageJ-devel] ImageJ2 and OME ROI models

[Lee Kamentsky]

Thanks, I suppose if you wanted to look at how things are in the code 
base, I'd appreciate it, but it's certainly not necessary. I've been 
following the discussion and have kept silent mostly because Curtis has 
described the situation correctly. We designed the overlay / ROI 
framework specifically with the OME schema in mind so that our overlays 
could both serve as image annotations and n-dimensional delineations of 
the space in which the image resides. Eventually, we should have full 
support for all attributes in the OME model and for all shapes in the 
standard and adapters that allow their creation and editing.

--Lee

On 6/23/2011 6:04 AM, Jason Swedlow wrote:
> All cool.  A bottle of whisky for the best suggestion for "M".
>
> Lee, if there's anything you want the OME team to look at, just shout. 
>  I think most are now on imagejdev.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jason
>
> On 23 Jun 2011, at 01:04, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011, Jason Swedlow wrote:
>>
>>> I want to discuss with everyone one on this side, but I think there is
>>> general agreement with all the points you are making.  The model ImageJ
>>> uses for ROIs (or anything else) must deliver utility for ImageJ devs
>>> and users-- that's its first priority.  I think the major point is that
>>> we should build and implement these tools mindful of common and
>>> interoperable use.  That sounds like what is happening, and Lee's work
>>> to date sounds great. We'll look at it and report back.  In any case, I
>>> doubt we can completely avoid adapting one to another.  I believe we
>>> should treat the willingness to consider and plan for adaptability as a
>>> good thing, and the basis for future cooperation and collaboration.
>>
>> My experience is that when people are forced to adapt two paradigms into
>> one, either the outcome is better than any of the previous attempts, or
>> the people do not speak to each other anymore :-)
>>
>> Seriously again, I think that we're on a good track here, because 
>> what Lee
>> does is indeed the implementation side of something that is pretty well
>> defined in the OME standard.
>>
>> So all is good.
>>
>>> On the wider issue of broadening OME's scope, that is happening anyway,
>>> and will be done because it is useful and for no other reason.  We'll
>>> likely agree to keep "OME", and we can decide what M stands for later
>>> (maybe "Muhahahahahaha!").
>>
>> How about "Meh!"?
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Ciao,
>> Johannes
>
>
>
> **************************
> Wellcome Trust Centre for Gene Regulation & Expression
> College of Life Sciences
> MSI/WTB/JBC Complex
> University of Dundee
> Dow Street
> Dundee  DD1 5EH
> United Kingdom
>
> phone (01382) 385819
> Intl phone:  44 1382 385819
> FAX   (01382) 388072
> email: jason at lifesci.dundee.ac.uk <mailto:jason at lifesci.dundee.ac.uk>
>
> Lab Page: http://gre.lifesci.dundee.ac.uk/staff/jason_swedlow.html
> Open Microscopy Environment: http://openmicroscopy.org
> **************************
>
> The University of Dundee is a Scottish Registered Charity, No. SC015096.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ImageJ-devel mailing list
> ImageJ-devel at imagejdev.org
> http://imagejdev.org/mailman/listinfo/imagej-devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://imagej.net/pipermail/imagej-devel/attachments/20110623/6585bff9/attachment.html>