[ome-devel] Annotation fields

[josh.moore at gmx.de]

Bernhard Voigt writes:
 > Hi Josh!
 > 
 > >  > 1) is this the intentional usage of annotation-annotation-links and
 > >  > the namespace field
 > >
 > > Of namespaces, definitely. The AnnotationAnnotationLinks are also
 > > there to talk about annotations, but these should be used
 > > carefully. There's a danger of starting to do full-blown modeling with
 > > these inefficient types. If you realize before hand that you will be
 > > wanting to do this, the better solution is to define some format
 > > yourself -- file, binary, XML, CSV, etc. -- which will represent what
 > > you want to say. This we leave open to you, but will be looking to
 > > provide methods to help consume these in 4.1 and 4.2.
 > 
 > Ok, understood. However, creating a specific format and dumping it
 > into a text or file annotation makes searching and sorting difficult
 > if not impossible.

Correct, but the intended solution for this is to allow moving much of
the searching/sorting/processing work you'd like to do with those
values to the server. (See wiki-word OmeroScripts). This functionality
is what will be extended in the upcoming versions.

 > In order to avoid too many annotation-annotation links, would it be
 > possible to add more members to the base annotation class. E.g. name,
 > date, hidden just to name a few examples. Of course, this should be
 > limited to the most common use cases. What do you think?

This is something that it'd definitely be good to discuss on-list. I'll leave
it at that in case anyone else wants to chime in.

 > Best wishes! Bernhard
Ebenso, ~Josh.