-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
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
imaging: archiving the original data file? #17
Comments
Hi @jcolomb this question is too specific for me to answer. Where you posted it is the best place to get an answer. I'll just advice to add omero https://forum.image.sc/tags/omero |
While the specificity of the .nd2 format is clear, the question is quite general: should the proprietary formatted data be archived or should only the open formatted data be. I think the question should be asked, if not answered, in the Top-10-FAIR/imaging chapter, and would like it to be re-opened for this reason. |
I like your point, I will re-open this issue for anyone who would like to add comments to it.
Maybe the confusion arises when the definition is changed from raw to source data. Also, in theory if you have the original files it should be possible to export those into an open format, but when you do not have access to open the original files due to a proprietary format then yes providing the open format is ideal. Keeping in mind that some open formats may loose some details of the original file (and that is case by case). |
adding from the 10 FAIR for imaging:
|
Hi,
Thanks for making this available.
I am struggling with the question of archiving .nd2 files and whether I can get all metadata in a .omime.fiff. I asked here: https://forum.image.sc/t/data-archiving-what-format-to-use-which-files-to-keep/28947/11
What is your advice, should we archive both the nd2 file and a omime.tiff export, is the .nd2 file enough, is the omime.tiff file enough? Does it depend on the experiment?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: