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

sub-folders for modalities #74

Closed
choldgraf opened this issue Apr 13, 2018 · 4 comments · Fixed by #159
Closed

sub-folders for modalities #74

choldgraf opened this issue Apr 13, 2018 · 4 comments · Fixed by #159
Assignees

Comments

@choldgraf
Copy link
Collaborator

I think it'd be helpful if there were a way to distinguish examples for particular modalities. This could either be something like appending the modality name to each folder (e.g. ieeg_ds100), or we could put them in sub-folders (BIDS-examples/meg/ds100 and BIDS-examples/fmri/ds101). There will be many datasets that have multiple modalities, but I think this would be useful to guide newcomers and make it easier for them to find the information they want.

@chrisgorgo
Copy link
Contributor

This looks like a duplicate of #52...

@choldgraf
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Ah sorry - I should have been clearer. Since I'm updating the validator right now I was suggesting this is something I could try implementing (changing the validator tests to reflect updated folder structure). If you think these two things should be done separately, then I can hold off.

@chrisgorgo
Copy link
Contributor

The only concern I have is that most examples are multimodal so tags rather than folders would work better. But we cannot have tags. What about making the guide to examples more prominent by moving it from wiki to the README?

@robertoostenveld
Copy link
Collaborator

agreed, I also consider the documentation in the wiki not obvious to find. We could also have a few README files, one for each logical grouping.

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants