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

Define arbitrary units (or synonym) in specification #580

Closed
tsalo opened this issue Aug 24, 2020 · 5 comments · Fixed by #606
Closed

Define arbitrary units (or synonym) in specification #580

tsalo opened this issue Aug 24, 2020 · 5 comments · Fixed by #606
Labels
opinions wanted Please read and offer your opinion on this matter
Milestone

Comments

@tsalo
Copy link
Member

tsalo commented Aug 24, 2020

The SI doesn't have a term for arbitrary/unknown units, as far as I can tell, which means that whatever term BIDS uses must be explicitly defined in the specification. BEP001 (#508) has adopted "arbitrary units (a.u.)", while BEP009 uses "unitless". According to Wikipedia, alternatives include "unknown unit" or "procedure defined unit". Also, "a.u." can apparently be confused with "astronomical unit" or "atomic unit". Astronomical units probably won't come up in BIDS, but atomic units could. The abbreviation recommendations on wikipedia are "arb. unit" and "[arb'U]".

Whatever our decision is, the Units page of the specification should be updated and the choice in terminology should be fed back into the BEPs.

Note: This stems from this Mattermost conversation.

@tsalo tsalo added the opinions wanted Please read and offer your opinion on this matter label Aug 24, 2020
@melanieganz
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for catching this. We didn't catch it in BEPP009. I think we should be avoiding any confusion such as 'a.u.' with atomic units. I think your suggestion with arbitrary units isgood, but in order to enhance processability should we have something without any '.' or so? So could it be 'arbU'?

@tsalo
Copy link
Member Author

tsalo commented Aug 24, 2020

I don't know if periods in json fields are a problem, but arbU works for me regardless.

@sappelhoff
Copy link
Member

arbitrary units do not seem to be covered by our current RECOMMENDATION for units (CMIXF-12) ... so we'll have to make whatever we decide for (arbU, a.u., ...) another exception to our recommendation.

--> similar to how ° and µ are exceptions.

REF: https://bids-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/99-appendices/05-units.html

@effigies
Copy link
Collaborator

effigies commented Sep 1, 2020

Aesthetically, I find arbU pretty ugly, so this comment is probably mostly motivated by that...

What about "arbitrary"? It's not clear that we need an abbreviation at all, as it will be used sparingly and the existing abbreviations can either be confused with other units or are kind of awkward. The units are incommensurable, so there's no automatic manipulation possible that would really motivate using the abbreviation from another standard.

@sappelhoff
Copy link
Member

@tsalo a PR to introduce "arbitrary" is welcome, we could then continue discussion in the PR and get some more approvals.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
opinions wanted Please read and offer your opinion on this matter
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants