Device model numbers

[bendichter]

Devices should allow for an optional model number field. Also, there is a general rule that devices can be specified by certain specs, or by a model number, which can be looked up. For instance, if a user wants to document an objective lens, they can specify it either by including the model number or by providing:

• manufacturer
• magnification
• aperture

Should be make this a general rule that device definitions have certain associated specs but these do not have to be supplied if a model number is given?

[rly]

Yes, definitely, we should add an optional model_number to Device.

I think we should also add an optional model_name field. model_name would represent the consumer-facing description of the device and model_number represents the specific code or part number of the device within the manufacturer's inventory. model_name is useful if the model_number is cryptic. BUT perhaps users could just include this in the description. Users might also encode this in the name, but if you have, say, two different Neuropixels probes, the name for the probes cannot both be 'Neuropixels'.

I think we should also add an optional serial_number field to Device to identify a globally unique instance of a device, given the model name/number and manufacturer. This is useful for tracking particular probes, microscopes, etc., within a lab. If I find out after data collection that a particular device is faulty, I want to know which data are impacted.

We could create a Lens subtype of Device that has magnification and aperture and say in its documentation that either model_number must be specified or {manufacturer, magnification, aperture} must be specified.

Related: https://github.com/NeurodataWithoutBorders/nwb-schema/issues/258