Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Allow . as the dimension separator #135

Open
jstriebel opened this issue Aug 16, 2022 · 4 comments
Open

Allow . as the dimension separator #135

jstriebel opened this issue Aug 16, 2022 · 4 comments

Comments

@jstriebel
Copy link

Since v0.2, / is the only allowed dimension separator for OME NGFF chunk paths. To be compatible with Zarr arrays in general, it would be great to also allow . as the dimension separator, depending on the Zarr metadata if available.

This allows to add OME metadata to existing Zarr arrays, that already use the . dimension separator.

@joshmoore
Copy link
Member

Thanks for capturing this, @jstriebel. I can't remember if I mentioned to you or to Norman but for everyone: the hard requirement on a single separator was required while the dimension_separator addition was being add to the Zarr v2 spec. At this point, I think it's fine to drop. If either of you want to drive that, please feel free. The major caveat will be that the implementations will need to be updated as well.

(There have also been requests to support Zip-based NGFFs which will touch the same code paths.)

@normanrz
Copy link
Contributor

We are happy to drive this.
Fwiw, I wouldn't interpret the current spec to have a strict / requirement, because it is not explicitly mentioned. Other parts of the Zarr spec are also not re-defined in the OME-NGFF spec, so, I would assume all features of zarr v2 are valid. Most implementations that support OME-NGFF already support ., because of their underlying zarr implementations.

@joshmoore
Copy link
Member

Then we're looking at different implementations which is a good realization itself 😄

 │   └─ t                  # Chunks are stored with the nested directory layout.

@normanrz
Copy link
Contributor

I see. To me the directory listing seemed more like an example section than a normative section.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants