|
Hi David,
Concerning the link to https://imagej.net/ImageJ, what I wanted to show you is not about flavours, but you can notice in the first row of the table (ImageJ2), third column, that they explicitely wrote that developers of ImageJ2 are "ImageJ developers". So, in our mind, this is the same lab that developped both tools.
The confusion, here, seems to araise from the mix of ImageJ and ImageJ1, which are not the same it seems... So, if I understood well:
- ImageJ has been developped by developpers in 1997 inspired by NIH image,
- ImageJ1 is ImageJ, but maintained by another (unique) developper,
- ImageJA is ImageJ1 corrected to be Git-compatible (maintained by both ImageJ and ImageJ1 developpers),
- ImageJ2 is developped by the same developpers as ImageJ (not ImageJ1), based on ImageJA.
Whow ! That's complicated ! So, do we actually need 4 entries ? ;)
As I said, we are not experts in all fields so if you are an expert and you say that 2 entries would be better, we will discuss internally to add a new one. No problem. Today, the best reason I see to add a new entry, definitively, is the license. Because this is particularly relevant for the tool use. But if you say that 2 entries would be useless, we keep 1... We will anyway discuss about this internally (due to the complicated history of the tool) and come back to you with a decision. I note that both ImageJ1 and ImageJ2 are still in development.
I also note that we already have Fiji as a different entry, which is just ImageJ.... with some plugins already pre-installed. Same for ImageJFX (new interface).
Fabien
De : Carnë Draug <carandraug+dev@gmail.com>
Envoyé : vendredi 21 décembre 2018 02:50:45 À : Fabien Pichon Cc : Steffen Möller; Debian Med Objet : Re: ImageJ, ImageJ1, and ImageJ2 entries in omics tools On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 10:58, Fabien Pichon <fabien.pichon@omictools.com> wrote:
> > Hi again, > > > Just to precise about what has been said : > > > "Both ImageJ 1 and 2 are still under development, are developed in > different places by different people, and even have different > licenses. " > > We do not see such information in official sources. > Authors of ImageJ2 are the same than ImageJ (same lab, same last author, second author here was first author before): > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708080/ This paper is about the history of ImageJ, it's not a paper describing the software, and the authors do not claim to be its developers. The second author is, which is also the one not an author on the other papers you list. > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5428984/ This paper is about the ImageJ community, the many plugins it has, and how open source enabled it. It includes a small description of what ImageJ does but the authors do not claim to be authors of ImageJ (and they can't). The way I read the paper, is an analysis of what made ImageJ successful and how they can apply those ideas and principles to develop ImageJ2. > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5554542/ This paper is about ImageJ2. This is the paper where they report the work they have done in developing ImageJ2. > See also the link below, where information is explicitely given : > https://imagej.net/ImageJ I don't get it. This page says there's many flavours of ImageJ. What does the flavour of a program means? The only thing in common in all those flavours is that they all include ImageJ1. > Concerning the field "Version" in our pages, it should be understood > as "Last version". I will speak with our team to make it clearer. Note that both ImageJ1 and ImageJ2 are still under active development. The latest ImageJ1 release is 1.52i which was released just a few weeks ago, in 2018-11-26. https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/notes.html Also, ImageJ1 is public domain while ImageJ2 is two-clause BSD. So if this is a tool entry for all versions, and the version field means last version, then the license field should also be made specific that it refers to the last version. > So, we are open to discussion and we can discuss about the need to > create a new entry, but you should give us more insights about how > the two versions are really different. For example, are plugins from > ImageJ compatible with ImageJ2 or not ? Kind of. I'm still a bit confused about the structure of ImageJ2. ImageJ2 has many components. It includes ImageJ1 to run those. I guess it all depends what is the purpose of having this entry. I have found that most users have no clue and probably don't care much what ImageJ they are running. And saying that a work was done with ImageJ is as much useful as saying it was done with numpy, i.e., pretty useless. Best, David |