-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 157
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
participants_id nomenclature #384
Comments
The term "participant" was used out of respect for study volunteers, but unfortunately, that was a last-minute change and not everything was converted (for example Changing this now would lead to a lot of compatibility issues. I'm not sure the benefits would justify it. |
Adding to that, the “respect” considerations specific to human subjects don't generalize well to neuroimaging research as a whole. We're trying to improve BIDS usability for preclinical neuroimaging (with some success), and calling rodents or non-human primates “participants” is weird and possibly confusing (the participants are the operators). Not least of all, for privacy concerns, I assume human subjects get alphanumeric identifiers. I think “respect” becomes an inappropriate notion at that point. The backwards compatibility issue makes sense, yes. Is there no policy for introducing backwards-incompatible changes? In my data I add a separate identical column to |
Ahh I have always wondered about this. @TheChymera I think you make fair points about having
There is an official strict policy that we don't implement backwards-incompatible changes (see first sentence in the BEP part of the spec). All proposals for BIDS 2.0 (which WILL have backwards INcompatible changes) are collected here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LEgsMiisGDe1Gv-hBp1EcLmoz7AlKj6VYULUgDD3Zdw Please feel free to add your proposal! |
I couldn't figure out how to link to a text anchor in Google Docs, here is the proposal text I added:
|
closing this here, the discussion can continue in the BIDS 2.0 document. Thanks for adding it there @TheChymera |
I'm wondering whether we shouldn't rename the
participants_id
key and even the participants notion throughout BIDS tosubject
. For all data I have seen these fields end up having the same value assubjects
, and even if somewhere they might not, I don't think it makes sense to encourage two value sets specifying the same entities.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: