Jason Swedlow wrote:
> Dear All-
>
> Today, we are publishing a commentary on file formats in the Journal
> of Cell Biology.  The full text is available at:
>
> http://jcb.rupress.org/content/189/5/777
>
> The article represents OME's position on the continued explosion of
> file formats in biological imaging.  As we move towards more complex
> data, greater opportunities for data sharing and collaboration, and
> rapidly developing image repositories, we strongly contend  that the
> current situation must evolve.  New file formats should not be created
> with every new software release.
Hi Jason,

With respect, isn't this also introducing yet another "non-standard" 
format?  I don't think your "specification" fits some of the new imaging 
modalities and contains no validation information (to help stop data 
fabrication). I think this is a weakness of your suggested standard  
-let alone security issues.

I can't help wonder why you did not consider pushing/using an existing 
_scientific image_ format, such as  FITS  -just look at the huge amount 
of work by the IAS to establish that scientific image data format? Since 
FITS is established, tightly controlled and can hold (as far as I know) 
all the data necessary to define machine/modality/processing why did you 
pick the 'XML bandwagon'?

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that your effort in trying to 
establish a standard for scientific imaging files is not worthwhile and 
needed but the specification just seems too focussed on some current 
confocal modalities... 

Many regards Mark