[WIP] restructuring data repos

[Remi-Gau]

Pulled together all the data repositories into the same page and tried to implement the data repositories templates.

• seems that tags should be marked with {} and not [] because otherwise the linter throws more warning than a geiger counter next to the Chernobyl reactor 4.

• tempted to add a datalad compatible section to the the data repo template

I am not too pleased with the visual render so far. A mix of using headings and adding some comments for each resource makes it hard to navigate visually, no?

Maybe we should move the longer descriptions (that I copy pasted from RRID database) in the template so they don't pollute the main page.

[alexandreroutier]

Hi @Remi-Gau!

I looked at the rendered page and I have some questions and remarks:

• The title "MRI/fMRI" should be renamed to something covering more topics e.g. "MRI, PET or Histology"
• We should remove the documentation item.
• I find "data type" covering too many topics e.g. (e.g. {human} {healthy} {autism} {fMRI} {MRI} {resting state} covers imaging, subtype of imaging, disease, (non-)human participant)
• What would contain "tags"?
• For fMRI, when several task-based fMRI are done, should we mention them on this page?
• Same question for PET imaging, when using several tracers.
• {MRI} should use BIDS naming convention for types of acquisition (e.g. {T1w} {T2w} {FLAIR} instead of {MRI})

A proposition of splitting of "data type":

• Involve human participants? Yes
• Involve animal participants? Yes {Monkey} {Dolphin} ... (If we want to detail animal models 🤔 )
• Contain healthy participants? Yes
• Disease(s): {Alzheimer's Disease} {Autism}
• Acquisition data: {T1w} {FLAIR} {DWI} {rs-fMRI} {task-fMRI} (it that makes sense to distinguish resting-state task from active task) {PET} {EEG} {iEEG} {ECoG} {}

• seems that tags should be marked with {} and not [] because otherwise the linter throws more warning than a geiger counter next to the Chernobyl reactor 4.

😅 I think the linter expected links []() that would explain the warnings. \[ \] may have silenced the warnings but I prefer when { } are used.

• tempted to add a datalad compatible section to the the data repo template

Great idea! I am in favor.

I am not too pleased with the visual render so far. A mix of using headings and adding some comments for each resource makes it hard to navigate visually, no?

When navigating to this page, it was a little bit hard to understand the structure of the content we can access. I am not sure yet how we can improve this.

Maybe we should move the longer descriptions (that I copy pasted from RRID database) in the template so they don't pollute the main page.

By template, you mean move the description of a database in its hidden textbox ?

[Remi-Gau]

* The title "MRI/fMRI" should be renamed to something covering more topics e.g. "MRI, PET or Histology"

* We should remove the documentation item.

Agree

* I find "data type" covering too many topics e.g. (e.g. `{human} {healthy} {autism} {fMRI} {MRI} {resting state}` covers imaging, subtype of imaging, disease, (non-)human participant)

To be honest I have mostly copy-pasted the info from RRID database, so if we manage to automate this, those data-types would be added automatically unless we want to "curate" that too.

* What would contain "tags"?

I think we agree it is redundant with the data type in this case, right?

* For fMRI, when several task-based fMRI are done, should we mention them on this page?
* Same question for PET imaging, when using several tracers.

Isn't too much detail?

* {MRI} should use BIDS naming convention for types of acquisition (e.g. `{T1w} {T2w} {FLAIR}` instead of `{MRI}`)

i am not opposed to it but maybe that is too much detail. Though I will not oppose anyone who wants to add those details but I am not sure I would ask people to mention them when adding a database. What do you think? We could have them as options in the template, to help incite people in mentioning those.

A proposition of splitting of "data type":

* Involve human participants? Yes
* Involve animal participants? Yes {Monkey} {Dolphin} ... **(If we want to detail animal models thinking )**
* Contain healthy participants? Yes
* Disease(s): {Alzheimer's Disease} {Autism}
* Acquisition data: {T1w} {FLAIR} {DWI} {rs-fMRI} {task-fMRI} **(it that makes sense to distinguish resting-state task from active task)** {PET} {EEG} {iEEG} {ECoG} {}

You mean you would have a sublist under the data-type heading?

• seems that tags should be marked with {} and not [] because otherwise the linter throws more warning than a geiger counter next to the Chernobyl reactor 4.

sweat_smile I think the linter expected links []() that would explain the warnings. \[ \] may have silenced the warnings but I prefer when { } are used.

You are totally correct. I actually made the change already in another PR. Need to rebase and make some fixes to this one now.

• tempted to add a datalad compatible section to the the data repo template Great idea! I am in favor. :smile:

I am not too pleased with the visual render so far. A mix of using headings and adding some comments for each resource makes it hard to navigate visually, no? When navigating to this page, it was a little bit hard to understand the structure of the content we can access. I am not sure yet how we can improve this.

OK I wll try something.

Maybe we should move the longer descriptions (that I copy pasted from RRID database) in the template so they don't pollute the main page. By template, you mean move the description of a database in its hidden textbox ? Yes that is exactly what I had in mind.

[Remi-Gau]

@alexandreroutier I cleaned things a bit and removed the documentation and tags keys. What do you think?