[FIX] Clarify run entity to accommodate multiple imaging modalities

[yarikoptic]

As we have now other modalities, such as EEG and MEG, "scan" is not really the
most appropriate term here. Having said that we do use _scans etc for EEG and
MEG as well ATM, as it was the "forward compatible" with existing MRI-centric
BIDS back then.

[effigies]

My intuition would be that a "data sample" is a volume, while "recording" would cover a time series. Not sure how other modalities would think about it.

This isn't an objection, just trying to see if there's a clearer word. I'm okay with "data sample" if it's clear to most people.

[yarikoptic]

FWIW, I am not entirely happy with "data sample" either for the reasons you have stated. May be someone could suggest a better name...

[sappelhoff]

I think I would find "recordings" most intuitive. But I don't think "scans" is a problem either - in particular because we do use scans.tsv for (structly speaking) non-scanning modalitites (EEG, ...)

-If several scans with the same acquisition parameters ...
+If several recordings (e.g., MRI scans) with the same acquisition parameters ...

[sappelhoff]

this is a relatively minor thing, but perhaps some more @bids-standard/maintainers have an opinion so that we can address this?

[sappelhoff]

FYI, I rebased on master and force pushed.

[tsalo]

I agree that recording is a bit clearer than data sample, but the definition of "run" under common principles explicitly links it to "data acquisition". Should we use that instead?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #760 (8bcaba2) into master (7ec7450) will increase coverage by 0.96%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #760      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   70.53%   71.50%   +0.96%     
==========================================
  Files           9        9              
  Lines         930      930              
==========================================
+ Hits          656      665       +9     
+ Misses        274      265       -9     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
tools/schemacode/schemacode/tests/test_schema.py	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
tools/schemacode/schemacode/_version.py	38.90% <0.00%> (+2.59%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 67c3d90...8bcaba2. Read the comment docs.

[sappelhoff]

fyi @yarikoptic we discussed this in yesterday's maintainers meeting and as all suggestions to date were improvements, we just decided to just go with one of them.