Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

BEP: Make proc filename keyword optional for other (T1, EPI, etc) modalities #65

Open
yarikoptic opened this issue Oct 24, 2018 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #105
Open

BEP: Make proc filename keyword optional for other (T1, EPI, etc) modalities #65

yarikoptic opened this issue Oct 24, 2018 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #105
Labels
consistency Spec is (potentially) inconsistent

Comments

@yarikoptic
Copy link
Collaborator

Continuing my trend (#47) of demands, I would like to add _proc to the campaign.
The original usecase (nipy/heudiconv#266) is NORMalized (intensity normalization performend by the scanner software) T1w and T2w anatomicals. NORM'ed files accompany non-normalized original raw data. Sure thing I could just consider them "derivative" images and drop them, but some researchers might believe in that preprocessing superiority and demand them to be present in their raw BIDS datasets since that is what they get from the scanner.
Given that there is now _proc field (introduced optional for stim and meg) I do not see why it should not be allowed (optional as well) for pretty much any other modality (in particular anat, bold, dwi).

@yarikoptic yarikoptic changed the title Make _proc optional for other (T1, EPI, etc) modalities BEP: Make _proc optional for other (T1, EPI, etc) modalities Oct 24, 2018
@chrisgorgo
Copy link
Contributor

chrisgorgo commented Oct 25, 2018

Why not use rec for this purpose - it's already in the spec?

@chrisgorgo chrisgorgo changed the title BEP: Make _proc optional for other (T1, EPI, etc) modalities BEP: Make proc filename keyword optional for other (T1, EPI, etc) modalities Oct 25, 2018
@yarikoptic
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Because it is not about reconstruction type. Reconstruction was the same afaik, only to one postprocessing was applied. If I were to stick it to some random field I would probably use _acq, but that is the point - why to stick into a random field with loose or inappropriate semantic?

@chrisgorgo
Copy link
Contributor

Please open a pull request with the change and we will see if anyone objects.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
consistency Spec is (potentially) inconsistent
Projects
None yet
3 participants