BIDS specification ; user feedback wanted ; listing entities in the specification

Hey everyone,

There is a open pull request that might change a bit how the specification will look: [MISC] Add mini entity tables after filename templates by tsalo · Pull Request #781 · bids-standard/bids-specification · GitHub

In practice a mini table would be added below each template for the filenames, to list all the possible entities for that data type and mention if that entity is required or not.

Pro:

It is reusing some of the tables that already exist in the appendix, but adds them next to each filename template.

Con:

It adds cluttering sometimes with small tables: see here.

https://bids-specification--781.org.readthedocs.build/en/781/04-modality-specific-files/03-electroencephalography.html#eeg-recording-data

And sometimes big tables: see here

https://bids-specification--781.org.readthedocs.build/en/781/04-modality-specific-files/01-magnetic-resonance-imaging-data.html#anatomy-imaging-data

The maintainers would be curious to hear the thoughts of the “users” of the BIDS specification, regarding if this kind of visual / structure change to the spec would be welcome or would add more confusion. Feel free to chime in the pull request: [MISC] Add mini entity tables after filename templates by tsalo · Pull Request #781 · bids-standard/bids-specification · GitHub

@+

Rémi

1 Like

Hi!

I’m not 100% clear on what you mean by “users” of the BIDS specifications, but as a current BEP coordinator, I consider myself a “user”… So here are my thoughs :wink: Overall, I find this addition very useful! It provides a “quick overview” of the filename template which has a real added value (instead of having to go through a lot of text, you just look at the table and you know what’s up :wink: )…

Obviously, when the table is small, the added value is clear; when the table is big (like the anat example), it becomes too big to still be quickly readable, but anyhow, the persons who needs it can grab the info, e.g by looking at the single line that is of interest to them… Worst case scenario, people will ignore it…

Bottomline for me: either it’s clearly useful, or it’s less clear but doesn’t hurt… So if you average the level of usefulness across modalities, I think it remains strictly positive, so I’d be in favor of accepting this addition!

1 Like

Hey Sylvain

yeah I think you definitely qualify as a user.

several people on the mailing list raised concern that the added clutter would not be worth it, so not sure about this yet.

another possibility would be a single sentence below the filename templates that link to the appendix: would be less in your face and still somewhat make this information available.

MANAGED BY INCF