[SCHEMA] Update qMRI fieldmap schema

[effigies]

This PR:

1. Adds a number of fieldmaps that are in the spec but not the schema:
   • TB1AFI
   • TB1TFL
   • TB1RMF
   • RB1COR
   • TB1SRGE
2. Allows inv- entities for all qMRI fieldmaps, in accordance with https://bids-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/99-appendices/10-file-collections.html#fieldmap-data
3. Renames group comments more informatively.

I notice https://bids-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/99-appendices/10-file-collections.html#fieldmap-data also permits mt-, but I don't see any examples or use cases that call for it. Is it supposed to be permitted?

Clarifying these issues here, and will update the validator according to any decisions made.

cc @ChristophePhillips @Gilles86 @agahkarakuzu @tsalo

[tsalo]

It looks like TB1AFI requires acq for the two TRs. TB1TFL and TB1RMF seem to require acq for something more complicated. RB1COR requires acq for coils, although I think that could be replaced with the coil/ch entity when we get that added.

I'm not sure if the acq entity is required for all of them, since the text is a little ambiguous, but it does seem required. Would be good to get the qMRI folks' input on that.

[effigies]

Yes, the text says "should", not required, so I left it as optional for now.

[tsalo]

Assuming that the specification text is accurate w.r.t. acq's requirement level, these changes look good to me.

[effigies]

Added ab25456 so that all my questions/suggestions for the BEP-001 contributors about intent are in a single place.

[agahkarakuzu]

Thank you @effigies I'll go through them tomorrow.

[agahkarakuzu]

I'm not sure if the acq entity is required for all of them, since the text is a little ambiguous, but it does seem required. Would be good to get the qMRI folks' input on that.

@tsalo the acq was the only option to describe some of the fieldmaps. They are required in practice, but I avoided it given that acq is freeform. So I used the requirement level should. There is explanation about this in the appendix text, so if optional is a better selection for the schema, that's all good. As you pointed out, we can update these when there are new entities.

From the files changed, I see there was a confusion about between TB1RMF an TB1RFM. I also noticed that there was a typo about this int he appendix as well. The correct form is TB1RFM, so I can unify them to this similar to what @effigies did in 9672f91.

The other files changed looks good overall, now I'll review them one by one. Thank you!

[effigies]

There is explanation about this in the appendix text, so if optional is a better selection for the schema, that's all good.

Right now the schema only distinguishes required and optional, and doesn't have a notion of recommended. So we'll keep it as optional.

The correct form is TB1RFM

Fixed in 3bfeabb.

[agahkarakuzu]

Thanks @effigies! Can I push changes to this branch for other (relevant) corrections in the appendix?

[effigies]

Can I push changes to this branch for other (relevant) corrections in the appendix?

Sure.

[agahkarakuzu]

@effigies I noticed that I don't have write access. If that's how it should be, then I can open a PR from a fork.

[effigies]

It's just mass change fa- to flip-? I can do that real quick.

[agahkarakuzu]

Yes, these are the changes

[effigies]

Tests passing. Are we good to merge?