Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Overarching agenda for 2.0 #57

Open
yarikoptic opened this issue Jul 27, 2023 · 5 comments
Open

Overarching agenda for 2.0 #57

yarikoptic opened this issue Jul 27, 2023 · 5 comments

Comments

@yarikoptic
Copy link
Contributor

yarikoptic commented Jul 27, 2023

Short description of overarching theme/goals behind BIDS 2.0 . To make BIDS

  • more flexible as capable to accommodate new fields of neuroscience and use cases and possibly avoid breeding of "BIDS-like" offsprings
  • more consistent:
    • added from below by @tsalo: address any inconsistencies or inefficiencies that we had to incorporate into BIDS to maintain backwards compatibility. For example:
      • dropping either IntendedFor or B0FieldIdentifier/B0FieldSource,
      • removing deprecated elements like the phase suffix,
      • and addressing how space is used inconsistently across modalities.
    • see issues labeled with "deprecation" (most should get addressed)
    • see issues labeled with "consistency" (many should get addressed)
  • more modular
  • more tools-friendly
    • even more assumptions should migrate from human written documentation into machine-readable form (schema, and auxilary metadata, such as DatasetType etc)
  • more user-friendly
    • largely via "more consistent"
    • some rules could be relaxed or made more stringent to again reduce ambiguity
  • easy to adopt/migrate to: analogy could be "python 2 to 3 migration" -

With that in mind, not all issues in this repository will be approached for 2.0. Please vote with 👍 or 👎 on existing issues

some items which were removed etc

Postponed/reconsidered from initial composition:

  • make BIDS better "integrated" in the Web ecosystem, i.e. to become part of the linked web data

Removed/heavily rephrased:

  • should either remain compatible with BIDS 1.0 as any BIDS 1.0 dataset would remain compatible with BIDS 2.0. (Exclusions might happen, should be weighted through usage)
@poldrack
Copy link

I would suggest some discussion that is focused on use cases and user stories. What are the most important use cases for the current version of the standard, and how would the proposed changes impact the different users?  Conversely, what are the use cases/user stories that are currently impeded by the standard and how would the changes enable those?  

@yarikoptic
Copy link
Contributor Author

Note that many issues collected in this repository already come from users and their cases/stories. We had a few dozens of them IIRC.
For an "overarching" agenda I wanted to really see high(er) level goals. The ones I have stated might have got overfitted to the issues I had in mind, so may be people could suggest even better generalizations and more overarching?

NB. I think I should refactor this issue as a PR so we could have better means to adjust wording/statement...

@tsalo
Copy link
Member

tsalo commented Jul 28, 2023

Rather than remaining compatible with BIDS 1.0, one goal should, I think, be to address any inconsistencies or inefficiencies that we had to incorporate into BIDS to maintain backwards compatibility. For example, dropping either IntendedFor or B0FieldIdentifier/B0FieldSource, removing deprecated elements like the phase suffix, and addressing how space is used inconsistently across modalities.

@yarikoptic
Copy link
Contributor Author

sounds good -- that is why I mentioned "Exclusions" so it could sound like "Remove kludges from the growth pains of the BIDS 1.0". ;-)
What I meant is that we are unlikely to introduce as radical changes as sub- to par- (for "participant") or the other way change participants.tsv to subjects.tsv to bring consistency in that entity, which would break virtually every BIDS dataset... WDYT?

@yarikoptic
Copy link
Contributor Author

In recent @bids-standard/steering meeting we decided to announce 2024 is the "The year of BIDS adoption". And thus it could be one of the guiding principles -- what we need to do for BIDS 2.0 to increase adoption. And IMHO it is the issues like

and proposed approaches

@Remi-Gau Remi-Gau pinned this issue Feb 27, 2024
@yarikoptic yarikoptic changed the title Formalize overarching agenda for 2.0 Overarching agenda for 2.0 Apr 12, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Done
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants