-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 22
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
Should we support less restrictive SWC format? #432
Comments
Note that if we want to be able to read any morphology, we should be able to load somata with tree structures (i.e. with bifurcations, as described here: #213), which would be a major change. |
Another restriction that I'd like to see removed is the ban on custom SWC tags :) |
Hi @Helveg |
I currently don't have a reproducer at hand! In the SWC spec it is called the "Structure Identifier", but the error raised by MorphIO goes something like "custom tags not supported", and it blocks you from entering any value above ... 10, 15? While the SWC spec just says that any 5+ value is considered custom, so you already support 10 custom tags, but no higher |
Ah yeah ok I see, it is indeed limited to 10. It seems this limitation comes from the NeuroMorpho specs (as stated here: https://github.com/BlueBrain/MorphIO/blob/master/include/morphio/enums.h#L82). I don't see any reason for this limitation but we want to keep compatibility with NeuroMorpho, so I guess we want to keep this limitation. Nevertheless, it would be possible to add an option to automatically set these tags to 10 (or any other value between 5 and 10, I don't know what's the best, though I think we should avoid 6 and 7 values since they can have special meaning (branch point and end point respectively)), so it would still be possible to load the morphology (with warnings issued of course), though the section types would be messed up. WDYT? |
As long as I can still determine the original number that I gave in the SWC, that should be fine :) |
Unfortunately it would not be possible, all values |
Wow, this fell off my radar; sorry about that.
It appears there has been a further attempt to standardise SWC better: Which includes a governance/steering committee (with people from AIBS, INCF, neuromorpho, etc: https://swc-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/governance.html). Currently, they are saying that -1 is the starting point (from https://swc-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/swc.html):
So I'd prefer to keep this, as I think it makes sense to have at least some amount of uniformity and standard conformance. WRT custom tags, I don't really have a problem bumping the number to 20 or something, but that feels like a stopgap. The above specification only has |
I've added more |
Thanks for the addition! That should probably cover our needs for a while, but is more restrictive than I believe the format specifies, which depends on how you read the document. The table says for column 2:
So that's anything
I'm not sure if they mean to say that that should be the specification, or if they literally meant it as just an example of what NeuroMorpho uses. The document feels kind of rushed and unfinished, for example, the grammar of Nanda et al 2018 says:
which means type could be negative just as well: (PS: my tool encodes all regions with unique parameter sets on the morphology as a separate tag, I now use a homemade SWC parser, but I'd prefer to drop it, but this issue and access to the header would be required for that) |
It is more restrictive, but I also think that supporting many more would isn't in the spirit of having a "type" identifier, when the other examples are
Perhaps, but I think it's more clear than other "standardizations" I've read thus far.
I will give that some thought; since |
I have commented on the INCF proposal here: Which should hopefully have integrated the feedback from you, @Helveg, about integer types - I suggested that they have a defined type. Hopefully the other points in that proposal come true; that non-negative ids are not allowed, everything starts at root nodes, the ids are dense. If it's ok, I'm going to close this ticket for now, but open one about the access to the headers. |
Some softwares (e.g. https://alleninstitute.org/what-we-do/brain-science/research/products-tools/vaa3d/) might create SWC files with less restrictive specs (e.g. a root ID that is not equal to -1, see Vaa3D/vaa3d_tools#38). I guess this is also true for other file formats (ASC and H5 files). This raises again the question: should MorphIO be only able to load 'realistic' morphologies or should it be able to load any file as is, even if the morphology does not make any sense? As pointed out by @hanchuan in Vaa3D/vaa3d_tools#38, it might make sense to store morphologies in an intermediate but not realistic state.
WDYT @lidakanari @eleftherioszisis @mgeplf ?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: