search

bids-standard / bids-2-devel

Discussions and suggestions of backwards incompatible changes to BIDS
https://bids.neuroimaging.io/
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
11 stars 1 forks source link

Overarching agenda for 2.0 #57

Open yarikoptic opened 1 year ago

yarikoptic commented 1 year ago

Short description of overarching theme/goals behind BIDS 2.0 . To make BIDS

Some operating principles

With that in mind, not all issues in this repository will be approached for 2.0. Please vote with :+1: or :-1: on existing issues

some items which were removed etc Postponed/reconsidered from initial composition: - make BIDS better "integrated" in the Web ecosystem, i.e. to become part of the linked web data Removed/heavily rephrased: - should either remain compatible with BIDS 1.0 as any BIDS 1.0 dataset would remain compatible with BIDS 2.0. (Exclusions might happen, should be weighted through usage)
Robert: What would be selling points for users to migrate to BIDS 2.0? - some BIDS-like standards would get "one step closer" so may be some users jump over to BIDS from non-BIDS - new tools would be supporting BIDS 2.0 - easy to migrate with migration script - some new features (e.g. modular composition #59) would allow for easier distributed processing
Ariel: User concern -- "should I now duplicate my dataset?" - @yarikoptic: in dandi-cli (`dandi organize`) we solved it in part via "symlinks" - @effigies : git branches could be used as well if datalad is used
poldrack commented 1 year ago

I would suggest some discussion that is focused on use cases and user stories. What are the most important use cases for the current version of the standard, and how would the proposed changes impact the different users?  Conversely, what are the use cases/user stories that are currently impeded by the standard and how would the changes enable those?  

yarikoptic commented 1 year ago

Note that many issues collected in this repository already come from users and their cases/stories. We had a few dozens of them IIRC. For an "overarching" agenda I wanted to really see high(er) level goals. The ones I have stated might have got overfitted to the issues I had in mind, so may be people could suggest even better generalizations and more overarching?

NB. I think I should refactor this issue as a PR so we could have better means to adjust wording/statement...

tsalo commented 1 year ago

Rather than remaining compatible with BIDS 1.0, one goal should, I think, be to address any inconsistencies or inefficiencies that we had to incorporate into BIDS to maintain backwards compatibility. For example, dropping either IntendedFor or B0FieldIdentifier/B0FieldSource, removing deprecated elements like the phase suffix, and addressing how space is used inconsistently across modalities.

yarikoptic commented 1 year ago

sounds good -- that is why I mentioned "Exclusions" so it could sound like "Remove kludges from the growth pains of the BIDS 1.0". ;-)
What I meant is that we are unlikely to introduce as radical changes as sub- to par- (for "participant") or the other way change participants.tsv to subjects.tsv to bring consistency in that entity, which would break virtually every BIDS dataset... WDYT?

yarikoptic commented 10 months ago

In recent @bids-standard/steering meeting we decided to announce 2024 is the "The year of BIDS adoption". And thus it could be one of the guiding principles -- what we need to do for BIDS 2.0 to increase adoption. And IMHO it is the issues like

and proposed approaches