Overarching agenda for 2.0

[yarikoptic]

Short description of overarching theme/goals behind BIDS 2.0 . E.g. built from a combination of following items

• make BIDS more flexible to easily accommodate new fields of neuroscience and use cases
  • Use-cases:
    • https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-2-devel/issues/62
    • https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-2-devel/issues/60
• make BIDS better "integrated" in the Web ecosystem, i.e. to become part of the linked web data
• more user friendly (via relaxation of some rules)
• 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)
  • edited: "compatible" as reliably "could be migrated" from 1.x to 2.x. Ref: https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-2-devel/issues/67 .
• added from below by @tsalo: 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.

[poldrack]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

• 11

• 38

• 60

and proposed approaches

• 54

• 59