[ome-users] OME and LDIP

[Ilya Goldberg]

Hello all
This is a brief report on a conference call with LDIP, the pathology 
informatics initiative:
http://www.ldip.org/

LDIP is interested in using the OME XML Schema as part of their 
standard for pathology informatics.  They found and reached out to us 
with the idea that it would be better to extend something that already 
exists rather than begin from scratch.  This of course is very much 
compatible with our philosophy, and I hope I can speak for everyone 
when I say that we welcome their participation and look forward to 
working together.

The mile-high view is that objects specific to medical imaging (patient 
stuff, sample prep, etc) would live within the LDIP namespace, and we 
would make room within the OME namespace to contain these new fields.  
Other fields/objects required by LDIP involved with instrumentation 
(detectors, imaging modes, etc) would be added to the OME namespace and 
live at the same level of granularity that such things currently do 
within OME XML.  It is presumed that the majority of the new objects 
and fields necessary would be within the LDIP/medical namespace, while 
the "technical fields" having to do more directly with imaging and 
instrumentation would comprise a relatively smaller portion of what's 
needed.  Of course we would work together to make sure that the two 
namespaces don't conflict and don't reimplement each other's objects.  
The goal is a set of common objects used by a wider group of 
microscopists than those using OME presently.

One issue that wasn't addressed is the question of the outermost 
container.  Will that be OME for both use-cases?  Or, would there be a 
separate OME+LDIP container?  This is probably more of a political 
issue than a technical one.  The important thing is that LDIP would be 
in charge of objects specific to pathology informatics, and they will 
use existing OME objects instead of reinventing their own.  Obviously, 
we would do the same.

The strength and beauty of this of course is that now some of the very 
same microscope and software manufacturers can address the needs of two 
different types of users of their equipment by targeting a common 
"standard".  The synergy that results from this combined effort will 
ultimately benefit everyone by speeding up the adoption of 
interoperable objects, ontologies, and software in the wider world of 
Image Informatics.

Some of the members of LDIP will probably join one or both of these 
lists, so that we can continue to use them for subsequent discussions 
about this joint effort.  If it becomes necessary, we may create a new 
list specific to these types of discussions.

Cheers,
Ilya Goldberg