Remi-Gau
commented
3 months ago Along the same line, in you opinion, do you think it would make sense to also have the "source_entities" mentioned in the derivatives in the glossary?
Open oesteban opened 3 months ago
Remi-Gau
commented
3 months ago Along the same line, in you opinion, do you think it would make sense to also have the "source_entities" mentioned in the derivatives in the glossary?
oesteban
commented
3 months ago Totally
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024, 17:13 Remi Gau @.***> wrote:
Along the same line, in you opinion, do you think it would make sense to also have the "source_entities" mentioned in the derivatives in the glossary?
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-specification/issues/1748#issuecomment-2020859878, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAESDRX4HXLKCQTABUC5MA3Y2GGCFAVCNFSM6AAAAABFFZRWROVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAMRQHA2TSOBXHA . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: @.***>
Describe your problem in detail.
Some parts of the spec employ the placeholder
<matches>to refer to the entities that characterize a run or relevant subset of the dataset.It feels like a reasonable way of making the spec clearer. I think the spec just misses that it was defined in the glossary.
Describe what you expected.
The definition of
<matches>in the glossary, instead of every time it is used in a subsection of the spec.BIDS specification section
Example of use: https://bids-specification.readthedocs.io/en/stable/modality-specific-files/task-events.html