[Neuroimaging] JSON-LD and DICOM?

Andrey Fedorov andrey.fedorov at gmail.com
Fri Jun 30 12:18:44 EDT 2017

It is always puzzling to me why neuro people are so eager to discard
the original data.

Yes, non-DICOM is expected by most image analysis software. Fine -
give that representation to those tools, but always keep the original
DICOM. Instead, you guys are coming up with "yet another" format...

I think coming up with a new format, developing supporting tools and
toolkits, propagating it through the community, debugging etc - that
is indeed a high price to pay, with benefits to be seen.

For what it's worth, keeping track of a relationship seems like a lot
more natural solution to me!

My 2c!

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Andrey Fedorov
> <andrey.fedorov at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Matthew,
> >
> > I believe that image data and derived data belongs to DICOM, and DICOM
> > is the format that should be used directly.
> >
> > We applied these ideas and demonstrated some capabilities here
> > https://peerj.com/articles/2057/, and we continue the development of
> > supporting tools in DCMTK and in https://github.com/qiicr/dcmqi.
> >
> > Perhaps if you give me some specifics about "why not DICOM", we could
> > have a bit more focused conversation.
> >
> > I do realize and anticipate that you will take this as a complete heresy.
> Well - not heresy.  I understand what you mean, but there's a reason
> that most brain imaging software doesn't use DICOMs as the native
> format, so, if we don't import the information from the DICOMs, then
> the user has to keep track of the relationship of the DICOMs and
> NIfTIs, which seems like a high price to pay.
> Cheers,
> Matthew

More information about the Neuroimaging mailing list