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

Current state of the BEP (NOT FOR MERGING) #24

Draft
wants to merge 120 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Current state of the BEP (NOT FOR MERGING) #24

wants to merge 120 commits into from

Conversation

Lestropie
Copy link
Collaborator

This is a replacement of #6 as the BEP is being reinvested in.

The PR is not for merging, but to show the current state of the difference between the BEP and an up-to-date master of the BIDS specification.

effigies and others added 19 commits September 18, 2019 10:13
This PR splits the tractography section from the diffusion derivatives
document, so that #5 is easier to merge.
The new ``05-diffusion-derivatives-tractography.md`` file will remain
orphaned, but kept there as a base for the time we tackle tractography.
It shouldn't be merged into the derivatives branch until it is ready.
- More clarity of distinction between requisite and optional files in output directory.
- Try using 3 spaces rather than 4 in non-code indentation; partly to try to get tables within dot point lists to render correctly, partly to improve editor software syntax highlighting.
- Various small re-wordings.
- Slightly more use of hyperlinks.
- Short introductions to "parameter terminology" and "data representations" sections.
- Be more explicit about normalised vs. non-normalised 3-vectors, so that structure more clusely mimics that of description of spherical coordinate representation.
- Rename hyperlink names to "parameter terminology" section to better separate from later "intrinsic / extrinsic model parameters" sections.
Based on suggestion in #5. If all model intrinsic parameters are incorporated into a single file, rather than dropping the "_parameter-<param>" field, instead enforce that parameter name "all" be used.
When introducing the file naming convention, give an example of the "_<model>" field.
Re-arranged descriptions of intrinsic and extrinsic model parameters within the file naming section, and corrected a discordance in one dot point that was using an intrinsic model parameter filename path but discussing extrinsic model parameters.
Provide information on specification of orientation data after the various models and model parameters have been explained.
arokem and others added 23 commits May 14, 2024 13:54
…actions/actions/checkout-4

Conflicts:
	.github/workflows/schemacode_ci.yml
	.github/workflows/validation.yml
* DWI models: Clarify metadata fields relevance

* DWI models: Typo fix

---------

Co-authored-by: Ariel Rokem <[email protected]>
…ctions/checkout-4

Bump actions/checkout from 3 to 4
Apply US spelling. Addresses current codespell CI failure.
DWI models: Force presence of "param" entity
- FSL bedpostx command fibre orientations stored as spherical coordinates are confirmed to use the "bvec" reference frame.
- Enforcing azimuth angle to obey the right hand rule about the zenith axis would necessitate direct modification of image intensities from bedpostx outputs to store. Therefore it would be preferable to instead define the sign of the azimuth angle based on the direction of the second reference axis.
Closes #95.
Closes #94.
Conflicts:
	src/derivatives/05-diffusion-derivatives.md
DWI models: Define "bvec" orientation reference
@arokem
Copy link
Collaborator

arokem commented Jun 5, 2024

IIUC, we need to resolve this discussion: https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-bep016/pull/104/files#r1605423106, and after that we can convert this to a PR against bids-standard/bids-specification:master. Is that others' understanding as well? Do folks want to weigh in on that terminology discussion? @francopestilli : do you have any thoughts on nomenclature for l/lmax?

@Lestropie
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Lestropie commented Jun 6, 2024

A PR without #71 and with no exemplar data generated via #23 would IMO be laughed off. You can't demand that the community format their data to your decree whilst literally never having done it yourself. Please give me time to generate a BIDS App to generate and save the derivatives currently exemplified in the specification document, so that they can be moved from there to bids-examples. I had to deal with the reference frame handling issues first.

@PeerHerholz
Copy link
Member

Hi @Lestropie,

concerning this, I started working on a respective BIDS App a while ago: bids_bep16_conv. It's a fully working BIDS App and we would only need to update the output formatting to conform to the current up-to-date version. Thus, if you would consider this feasible instead of starting a new BIDS App, I'm happy to help! No worries of course if not, e.g. you would prefer a different implementation, etc. .

Cheers, Peer

@Lestropie
Copy link
Collaborator Author

My comment was on the premise that the converter was being restricted in scope to exclusively conversion of pre-generated model fitting outputs, in which case another tool would be required to run the fitting then the conversion. Been a long break between bursts so certain details will still be a bit fuzzy. If in its current state that tool does both fitting and conversion, then that's the obvious starting point; but as per PeerHerholz/bids_bep16_conv#7 longer term we'll want to think about separation of those two steps.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants