Is the proposal to remove PD and replace it with PDw? While that is most logical, it represents a non-backwards compatible change; also, it suggests that current modality label PDT2 should also be revised to PDT2w (or PDwT2w?).
As this looks rather mature, seems sensible to think about how this will merge with the existing standard.
Is the proposal to remove PD and replace it with PDw?
Yes. We are going to make a 'legacy'-part of the big table where we put some the suffixes that are already in the spec but we recommend not to use anymore.
Jumping in here without having been involved much... hope this is isn't annoyingly obvious/redundant...
In reviewing bep001's 04-modality-specific-files/01-magnetic-resonance-imaging-data.md I noticed there is
while in the current standard we have in 04-modality-specific-files/01-magnetic-resonance-imaging-data.md we currently have
Is the proposal to remove
PD
and replace it withPDw
? While that is most logical, it represents a non-backwards compatible change; also, it suggests that current modality labelPDT2
should also be revised toPDT2w
(orPDwT2w
?).As this looks rather mature, seems sensible to think about how this will merge with the existing standard.