-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
Allow IntendedFor
and make task-
optional for _sbref.ext
#47
Comments
oesteban
referenced
this issue
in oesteban/bids-specification
Sep 28, 2020
This PR addresses the problem @mattcieslak spotted at in bids-standard#239. This enhancement (WIP) basically allows for researchers to encode the protocol's intent regarding fieldmaps. As @satra introduced in bids-standard#239 (comment), BIDS "*could encode intent and automation. Whether it should is a community decision." This PR proposes a solution to encoding the intent. It doesn't modify anything to allow also encoding automation. The PR attempts to be backwards compatible. I'm submitting this draft PR to open discussions and looking forward to feedback. Resolves: bids-standard#239. References: #263, nipreps/dmriprep#43, bids-standard/bids-2-devel#39
oesteban
referenced
this issue
in oesteban/bids-specification
Oct 23, 2020
This PR addresses the problem @mattcieslak spotted at in bids-standard#239. This enhancement (WIP) basically allows for researchers to encode the protocol's intent regarding fieldmaps. As @satra introduced in bids-standard#239 (comment), BIDS "*could encode intent and automation. Whether it should is a community decision." This PR proposes a solution to encoding the intent. It doesn't modify anything to allow also encoding automation. The PR attempts to be backwards compatible. I'm submitting this draft PR to open discussions and looking forward to feedback. Resolves: bids-standard#239. References: #263, nipreps/dmriprep#43, bids-standard/bids-2-devel#39
oesteban
referenced
this issue
in oesteban/bids-specification
Oct 23, 2020
This PR addresses the problem @mattcieslak spotted at in bids-standard#239. This enhancement (WIP) basically allows for researchers to encode the protocol's intent regarding fieldmaps. As @satra introduced in bids-standard#239 (comment), BIDS "*could encode intent and automation. Whether it should is a community decision." This PR proposes a solution to encoding the intent. It doesn't modify anything to allow also encoding automation. The PR attempts to be backwards compatible, and is based off of bids-standard#651, where the text about fieldmaps is being revised. I'm submitting this draft PR to open discussions and looking forward to feedback. Resolves: bids-standard#239. Depends: bids-standard#651. References: #263, nipreps/dmriprep#43, bids-standard/bids-2-devel#39
oesteban
referenced
this issue
in oesteban/bids-specification
Oct 26, 2020
This PR addresses the problem @mattcieslak spotted at in bids-standard#239. This enhancement (WIP) basically allows for researchers to encode the protocol's intent regarding fieldmaps. As @satra introduced in bids-standard#239 (comment), BIDS "*could encode intent and automation. Whether it should is a community decision." This PR proposes a solution to encoding the intent. It doesn't modify anything to allow also encoding automation. The PR attempts to be backwards compatible, and is based off of bids-standard#651, where the text about fieldmaps is being revised. I'm submitting this draft PR to open discussions and looking forward to feedback. Resolves: bids-standard#239. Depends: bids-standard#651. References: #263, nipreps/dmriprep#43, bids-standard/bids-2-devel#39
oesteban
referenced
this issue
in oesteban/bids-specification
Oct 26, 2020
This PR addresses the problem @mattcieslak spotted at in bids-standard#239. This enhancement (WIP) basically allows for researchers to encode the protocol's intent regarding fieldmaps. As @satra introduced in bids-standard#239 (comment), BIDS "*could encode intent and automation. Whether it should is a community decision." This PR proposes a solution to encoding the intent. It doesn't modify anything to allow also encoding automation. The PR attempts to be backwards compatible, and is based off of bids-standard#651, where the text about fieldmaps is being revised. I'm submitting this draft PR to open discussions and looking forward to feedback. Resolves: bids-standard#239. Depends: bids-standard#651. References: #263, nipreps/dmriprep#43, bids-standard/bids-2-devel#39
oesteban
referenced
this issue
in oesteban/bids-specification
Oct 28, 2020
This PR addresses the problem @mattcieslak spotted at in bids-standard#239. This enhancement (WIP) basically allows for researchers to encode the protocol's intent regarding fieldmaps. As @satra introduced in bids-standard#239 (comment), BIDS "*could encode intent and automation. Whether it should is a community decision." This PR proposes a solution to encoding the intent. It doesn't modify anything to allow also encoding automation. The PR attempts to be backwards compatible, and is based off of bids-standard#651, where the text about fieldmaps is being revised. I'm submitting this draft PR to open discussions and looking forward to feedback. Resolves: bids-standard#239. Depends: bids-standard#651. References: #263, nipreps/dmriprep#43, bids-standard/bids-2-devel#39
oesteban
referenced
this issue
in oesteban/bids-specification
Oct 28, 2020
This PR addresses the problem @mattcieslak spotted at in bids-standard#239. This enhancement (WIP) basically allows for researchers to encode the protocol's intent regarding fieldmaps. As @satra introduced in bids-standard#239 (comment), BIDS "*could encode intent and automation. Whether it should is a community decision." This PR proposes a solution to encoding the intent. It doesn't modify anything to allow also encoding automation. The PR attempts to be backwards compatible, and is based off of bids-standard#651, where the text about fieldmaps is being revised. I'm submitting this draft PR to open discussions and looking forward to feedback. Resolves: bids-standard#239. Depends: bids-standard#651. References: #263, nipreps/dmriprep#43, bids-standard/bids-2-devel#39
oesteban
referenced
this issue
in oesteban/bids-specification
Nov 6, 2020
This PR addresses the problem @mattcieslak spotted at in bids-standard#239. This enhancement (WIP) basically allows for researchers to encode the protocol's intent regarding fieldmaps. As @satra introduced in bids-standard#239 (comment), BIDS "*could encode intent and automation. Whether it should is a community decision." This PR proposes a solution to encoding the intent. It doesn't modify anything to allow also encoding automation. The PR attempts to be backwards compatible, and is based off of bids-standard#651, where the text about fieldmaps is being revised. I'm submitting this draft PR to open discussions and looking forward to feedback. Resolves: bids-standard#239. Depends: bids-standard#651. References: #263, nipreps/dmriprep#43, bids-standard/bids-2-devel#39
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Related to bids-standard/bids-specification#239.
Some fMRI studies will not acquire one SBRef for every multiband BOLD scan (this is probably true for DWI too, and thus bids-standard/bids-specification#239).
Currently, the
task-Name
entity needs to be defined for SBRefs. Doing it optional, would allow the following:Where, by the inheritance principle,
sub-3010_sbref.nii.gz
is intended for all tasks butrest
because a particularsbref
exists for that one.Additionally, I propose to allow defining the
IntendedFor
metadata for SBRefs, so the same behavior can be implemented without missing the provenance about what task was acquired closest to the sbref, e.g.:where
sub-3010_task-discountFix_run-1_sbref.json
has anIntendedFor
field:The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: