-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
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
Solidfy descriptive attributes of siibra concepts (i.e. atlas, parcellation, space, region, feature) #417
Comments
I would argue, the name should be concise but descriptive enough for user of siibra-python |
Naming examples for queries with the region
(Ebrains query)
(
For the other voi:
Querry for julich brain 2.9 parcellation:
|
Dev meeting 07.12.2023 update: Several attributes describing siibra concepts are not necessarily clearly defined. The table below shows what it should be and the restrictions on the attributes.
see features names in version v0.4a59 |
Names as of v1.0a05 (see comment for v.04a59)
(Ebrains query)
(
(Connectivity for Julich Brain 3.0)
|
Suggestions for features
Examples
(
(Connectivity for Julich Brain 3.0)
No idea at the moment
No change:(Ebrains query)
|
n.b. changing names will change the feature id. This invalidates all URLs that has feature selected. as discussed with @AhmetNSimsek :
Also to consider: how to more efficiently encode the id of compound/live query feature |
Are the suggestions above for the I think we have to suggest the complete picture of all necessary attributes, building on the table from Dec 7 where we outlines the use of the different properties. I suggest to expand the suggestions above into a table, with columns "name", "shortname", "description". One particular issue is in my eyes, whether the location information is needed in the name at all. I think the location (assigned region, coordinate[s], bounding box) could well be a separate attribute, or be requested from the str representation of the anatomical anchors when needed. The question is wether the location is required in the name to disambiguate in any of the relevant use cases. |
re: if location is needed at all in correct me if I am wrong, but in some cases, the location is the only differentiator, e.g. big brain cell intensity (?) ping @AhmetNSimsek |
Yes since the explorer currently uses the
There are features that has an anchor with location only. Therefore, distinguishing them is impossible without the location information. We could remedy this by indexing the points for example, i.e., "Modified silver staining intensity - point #1" (since it will be a compound feature). (Then the user can check the exact location by |
|
Each feature name should be informative but as brief as possible especially considering the display in the explorer.
EDT: Feature names need to be reworked for the next release of siibra-explorer
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: