Project Container

[wmoore]

Many times we've been asked for more levels ​https://www.openmicroscopy.org/community/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=385&p=4307

Either we use a Tag as a Project Container (same as Tag - TagGroup?) or we simple create a new Table in the DB.

In either case, an extra level would not "break" the current P/D/I hierarchy or any code. In the UI, it would appear in the same tree, with 'Orphaned Projects' appearing at the top level just as 'Orphan Datasets' do now.

Users who currently have a large number of Projects would be able to move them into the new "Project Containers", preserving a familiar data structure without having to move to a completely new system (E.g. FS).

[wmoore]

This was requested again by the Beatson Institute at our visit on Tuesday.
They thought that 1 more level would be enough.

[wmoore]

Gus was asked for "more levels" at Oxford on 17th April. "5 levels please"!

[rkferguson]

Also asked for at MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine in Edinburgh - they wanted 6 levels!

[wmoore]

E-mail to [ome-users] yesterday (Logan Thompson):

When uploading data, I would like to use a directory tree at least three levels deep but all I can set is the project and dataset during an upload. Is there a way to nest more levels within a single dataset? Eg:

                PROJECT TITLE
                                PROJECT DATASET
                                                DATASET – Subset
                                                                Images
                                                DATASET – Subset
                                                                Images
                                                DATASET – Subset
                                                                Images

Is this possible in the 4.2 OMERO client? I know that I can use tags to differentiate and easily separate images in a dataset folder, but having at least one more level in my directory would make navigation a lot easier and more user-friendly if someone else needs to visually follow how I am building our organization system.

[jburel]

See also ​https://www.openmicroscopy.org/community/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=385

[jburel]

From ​https://www.openmicroscopy.org/community/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=385&sid=e9709a914319d0d9072509901281177f

Despite the fact that I come from a computing background that started in dos command line, and then windows, therefore the hierarchical folder structure makes sense in my head; I would advocate NOT adding more folders. The problem being that if you gave people an additional folder level, they will stick with the out-dated concept of folders, and the bigger problem is that they will eventually find that 3 levels is not enough and want a forth added, then a fifth then a sixth.

Instead I would say that having a combination of folders and tags is confusing and we should have one or the other not both. So get rid of folders altogether and only have tags thereby allowing/forcing people to embrace the tag methodology and have the left hand explorer panel show image objects based on “Smart Folders” that get populated dynamically based on tag filtering.

If implemented sensibly there is no reason that data cannot be represented that looks like the classic hierarchical folder view but under the bonnet it is implemented using smart views and can also have the added benefit of object existing in multiple “places” at once.

So to summarise, the answer is to have hierarchical tags not hierarchical folders.

[jburel]

trello card ​https://trello.com/c/wyWMvK4L/46-deeper-hierarchies-multi-level-tags