[Neuroimaging] JSON-LD and DICOM?

[valabregue]

Hi all,



On 06/30/2017 09:57 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Jasper van den Bosch <japsai at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I have to agree with Andrey on the yet another format argument. Also, tools
>> will have to convert it to other formats anyway, so if you do end up storing
>> something in the header, as long as you document it, just like you would
>> other nibabel properties, I'd go for the simplest solution.
> There is going to be a JSON header extension quite soon, so it's not
> really another format, but another way of storing metadata in NIfTI.
> Then the question is - should we also store DICOM metadata there?
Yes we should store the Dicom metadata, this is the less effort, and it 
fulfills the needs ... May be I miss the point. What would be the 
alternative ? (to define a new ontologie for the metadata ?)

I am using (since a couple a years) the dcmstack that convert dicom to 
nifti + a json file (with all dicom meta data AND more importantly all 
private siemens fields). The nice feature of this conversion is that it 
aggregates field that are identical in all split dicom file (and keep 
array only when it is necessary).

Why not use this solution ?
I do not see any clear advantage to have this meta data information 
directly in the nifti file (a naming convention make it easy to keep a link)

chears

Romain