Stefan Appelhoff

transferring @tsalo's comment from the closed duplicate issue: - https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-specification/issues/1275#issuecomment-1246896003 > Just to clarify, this issue is related to one proposed new entity, like bodypart-? If so, I don't think...

xrefs to look into: - [ ] https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-specification/pull/1561 - [ ] https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-specification/pull/1617

Thanks for raising this issue, I think we should solve it. Let me make an alternative proposal: # Option D: accept non-included data when made explicit I thought that subject...

> first I think that the validator should throw a warning if there is a participants.tsv and that some sub-* that have a folder are not listed in it. and...

> allowing a medications field in the iEEG json sidecar. This would be backward compatible with the current specification, so it is possible in general terms. > The proposed scheme...

I see your concerns ... perhaps this should rather be a small scale ["BEP"](https://bids-specification.readthedocs.io/en/stable/06-extensions.html#bids-extension-proposals)? In any case, what is needed are: 1. some real-life examples, going from simple to complex...

IMHO something like this would be nice: 👇 this is what you could find in the source of the spec (md) ```` {{ MACROS___plot_tsv_example( """ header1 header2 header3 val11 val12...

that's our old issue with generating warnings for JSON schema based validation. In that workflow we currently only have: 1. fail with an often cryptic error message because the schema...

seems related to: - https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-specification/issues/914

here, @effigies states that electrodes.tsv is actually optional for iEEG: - https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-specification/issues/1550#issuecomment-1666051107 though I don't know where that information is coming from. Where do you take your information from @dorahermes?...