Page MenuHomePhabricator

Open, WishlistPublic


There is some agreement that shapemodels are of value for MIC. Do we want to keep, use and advertise it, action is required. Which action exactly needs to be discussed here:

  1. Should be buildable!
  2. Needs refactoring?
  3. Should be open-source?

Please add more discussion points if necessary!

Event Timeline

kislinsk triaged this task as Wishlist priority.Thu, Feb 18, 9:32 PM

I think the points are wrong ordered. First we should clarify (management decission) that it should go into a release/open-source and if tobi has the time to backing the process.
If this is cleare, the technical assesement of what has to be done to have it in master and under CI/testing can be evaluated/quantified.

@norajitr maybe a bit more background on the ticket for you:

On the Kaapana / JIP side there were issues with keeping shapemodel-based segmentation "alive" with newer versions. In addition, it was unclear how we could distribute it and what may be concerns or obstacles to putting it in the public version. Since we advertise it at the same time, and also use it often in demos etc. ideally it would be integrated in some automated build process for publicly accesible code, but of course non-public would be possible as well, but otherwise it will be difficult to maintain. Also the question oft trained models / weights, which "license" exists etc. would be something we have to resolve.

As @floca said at some point we will have do decide if we want it and how much to invest, but maybe you could also comment on your perspective, at least for open sourcing the code and the availability of models that could potentially be shared as well.

I like the idea of open sourcing the code and making models available as well. If we can roughly clarify how the workload/hurdles would look like in reality, I can also imagine to back the process. Licensing and publication of trained models arises more often lately, thus any solution here can probably also be fruitful for similar endeavors.