extra fields in metadata
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 171
- Forks
- 75
- Avg merge
- 2d 3h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 20
Description
As far as I can tell, all of the metadata in the spec permits additional fields to be added. Should we impose any restrictions on this? My concern is that if we allow implementations unlimited additions to the ome-ngff metadata, then users will be tempted to add fields, but as those fields are not explicitly part of the spec, there will be no guarantee that those fields survive a round-trip through arbitrary ome-ngff-compatible tools.
For something like multiscale metadata, there's already an unconstrained metadata field in which users or applications can put anything they want. Given this option, it seems reasonable to then require that users refrain from adding extra fields to the rest of the multiscales dictionaries.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with the linked multiscale metadata section and review the 19-comment thread to understand the unresolved policy question. Determine whether additional fields should be restricted outside the unconstrained metadata field; done requires an agreed specification change and clear rules for round-trip compatibility.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100