Add MOOSE segmentation JSON (dataset.json) format support directly

[prabathbr]

This patch will use dataset.json from a MOOSE segmentation directly. It will convert the input JSON data to suit nifti2dicom input JSON format on the fly.

Usage:
Added new argument "-m" or "--moose", conversion will apply when it is true. -m True

parser.add_argument("-m", "--moose", type=str, choices=['True', 'False'], required=False, default='False')

Sample Input dataset.json :

{'name': 'Dataset001_PUMA', 'description': '', 'reference': '', 'licence': 'hands off!', 'release': '0.0', 'labels': {'background': 0, 'legs': 1, 'body': 2, 'head': 3, 'arms': 4}, 'numTraining': 121, 'file_ending': '.nii.gz', 'channel_names': {'0': 'CT'}}

Sample conversion at organ_index:

{'1': 'legs', '2': 'body', '3': 'head', '4': 'arms'}

[LalithShiyam]

Hi @prabathbr, cool idea. However, I would prefer to keep this as generic as possible and not steering it towards moose. 😄

[prabathbr]

Hi @prabathbr, cool idea. However, I would prefer to keep this as generic as possible and not steering it towards moose. 😄

Thanks, I have made this additional tag "False" as default so that it would work normal if -m True is not added to the command line.

Would it be possible to merge this ? I thought it would be a nice option to have when MOOSE is used in the upstream with nifti2dicom, so that no external script is required to to parse MOOSE output JSON before feeding to nifit2dicom. 😄

[LalithShiyam]

I see/understand your point, I did discuss with @Keyn34, for his thoughts as well. So, from our perspective, it's not good to add special tags (specific for moose) when we use this for 5x tools internally. It's just a design choice. Also the conversion is simple - we don't need an extra tag. Sorry.

[Keyn34]

Hey @prabathbr, thank you for raising this and your input. We want to keep our tools as simple, stand-alone and encapsulated as possible. Although I understand your rationale, it would introduce a higher complexity in maintaining the tools as they would gradually become co-dependent.

I suggest building an interface tailored towards your demand. This is what I usually do when I want to use tools subsequently and intertwine. :) That way, you also have better control and can adjust things as you see fit.

Thank you for your effort, and I hope our perspective is understandable. :)

[prabathbr]

Hey @prabathbr, thank you for raising this and your input. We want to keep our tools as simple, stand-alone and encapsulated as possible. Although I understand your rationale, it would introduce a higher complexity in maintaining the tools as they would gradually become co-dependent.

I suggest building an interface tailored towards your demand. This is what I usually do when I want to use tools subsequently and intertwine. :) That way, you also have better control and can adjust things as you see fit.

Thank you for your effort, and I hope our perspective is understandable. :)

@LalithShiyam @Keyn34

Thank you very much for the insight.
I think having a separate parser script in our workflow would be the best way to go in that case :)