Clarification on Scope and Direction for Album + Query Workflow

[Pragya-rathal]

Hi @pradeeban and @anbhimi, While going through the album-related discussions and working on some small contributions around metadata querying, I’ve been trying to structure a proposal around a metadata-driven album pipeline. The direction I currently have in mind is: DICOM ingestion + validation metadata extraction and normalization into a consistent schema basic metadata-based querying static album creation (query → snapshot of files) potential extension toward query-driven (dynamic) albums Based on earlier guidance, I’m planning to keep the initial focus on static albums, and build toward dynamic/query-based ones later. Before refining this further, I wanted to clarify a few things: How much depth is expected in terms of system design vs implementation detail in the proposal? Is it better to keep the implementation scope minimal but well-defined, or propose a more feature-complete pipeline even if parts remain conceptual? Should priority be given more to metadata/querying aspects or album workflow + integration (e.g., viewer/manifest generation)? I have a more detailed structure in mind, but wanted to align on direction before going deeper.

[anbhimi]

Hi @Pragya-rathal,
You can borrow metadata extraction logic from "meta-extraction" module in Niffler, this should provide you with consistent metadata schema. We encourage to build a simple working system that could be implemented in the project duration than a conceptual one.

Album creation can be done in many ways - choose an option which is implementable while solving the underlying problem. If metadata based workflow is ideal - please feel free to include the details in the project proposal.

[Pragya-rathal]

Thanks, that’s very helpful. I’ll explore the Niffler metadata extraction module and focus on building a simple, working pipeline around static album creation first.

I’ll refine the proposal accordingly.