Magdalena Fuentes

I guess so... What would be the difference between `mir_eval` type and the `default` type? Annotations should be `mir_eval` compatible already no?

Yeah that makes sense to me. I guess that this will make sense to some annotations but not all of them as well

Makes sense!

Yes it can be added anyway! We have many of those in `mirdata`. What we do is to provide instructions in the download function indicating that you have to request...

Thanks for this @iranroman! We discussed this offline a bit and I agree that a new `annotation type` might be needed. Gonna drop an issue about that specifically

Hey @iranroman thanks for sharing this. I would say you can use the `start` and `end` of `Events`/`SpatialEvents` and clarify in the dataset description that this happens for some annotations....

@justinsalamon I have a few naive questions: what's the difference between having an `activation` field or having the source appearing and disappearing using `intervals`? Is it because is always the...

After that is done we can remove the patch in tags in #63

Moving the conversation here, adding @iranroman 's comment here: "I think what we need is a `SpatialEvents` class that accounts for `azimuth`, `elevation`, and `distance` of events. This would be...

@iranroman I like your proposal, seems general enough. I imagine that for the class to be general enough maybe we want to have `azimuth` and `elevation` as optional as well,...