Why is it necessary to produce invalid OME-Zarr images?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 394
- Forks
- 95
- Avg merge
- 4d 3h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 7
Description
Hi,
As far as I understand SpatialData is currently producing invalid OME-Zarr images.
I would like to understand why you choose to do this, even though it has obvious disadvantages such as:
- Other tools cannot open these images
- The image data cannot be published
Naively, I would have just added a spatialdata_multiscales into the JSON next to the official multiscales and then put whatever you need that is not compatible with the current OME-Zarr spec into spatialdata_multiscales. Why was this impossible?
Ping @LucaMarconato @joshmoore.
Contributor guide
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 Zulip discussion and the issue's description of OME-Zarr metadata, including the proposed spatialdata_multiscales field. Determine whether the current output is intentional and what compatibility behavior is expected; the issue is complete only when that design question has a documented decision or a concrete follow-up change.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- data
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100