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

metadata format and entry #86

Open
DavidTingley opened this issue Aug 17, 2017 · 13 comments
Open

metadata format and entry #86

DavidTingley opened this issue Aug 17, 2017 · 13 comments

Comments

@DavidTingley
Copy link
Collaborator

This is really more of a place to start discussion than code production. Currently, we have two places where metadata is stored at the individual session level (animal metadata is duplicated elsewhere) 1) the .xml and 2) the *.sessionInfo.mat file. Going forward we should establish a single internal lab format that is easy for newcomers to adopt and extensible to new data types (imaging, opto, patch, etc).

Some things we should figure out:

  • Should entry be text or GUI based?
  • Do we store the data in a xml or .mat file?
  • Should we have different priorities for different parts of the metadata (i.e. required, suggested, optional)?
  • others?
@dlevenstein
Copy link
Collaborator

-I think we need something that is GUI based
-An update to the .xml would be ideal - the xml already works with neuroscope and has a gui editor. All we need to do is add the fields we need, update the GUI, and improve LoadParameters to reflect the new fields. (and get rid of depreciated fields)
-with the GUI we can enforce required/suggested/optional
-we already have a list fields that we'd like to add that brendon worked on pretty extensively, can be refined as we go

@samamckenzie
Copy link
Collaborator

samamckenzie commented Aug 17, 2017 via email

@brendonw1
Copy link
Collaborator

brendonw1 commented Aug 17, 2017 via email

@samamckenzie
Copy link
Collaborator

samamckenzie commented Aug 17, 2017 via email

@brendonw1
Copy link
Collaborator

brendonw1 commented Aug 17, 2017 via email

@juneshuoyang
Copy link
Contributor

juneshuoyang commented Aug 17, 2017 via email

@brendonw1
Copy link
Collaborator

brendonw1 commented Aug 17, 2017 via email

@dlevenstein
Copy link
Collaborator

Import function is very good. I can't say what's good for data collection, and obviously we should do what needs to be done to make that process work well. But I think GUI is necessary for any metadata added post-recording during analysis. I.e. adding badchannels or other channel tags. Or for perusing recordings in a database. Also anything we do needs to be able to import from the old xmls so we can import the metadata from all the legacy datasets

@dlevenstein
Copy link
Collaborator

Also the system needs to be robust/flexible enough that it can still work if you're not doing the precise data collection pipeline imagined, as I'm sure others will have different needs

@dlevenstein
Copy link
Collaborator

any who - I think if we had a good GUI for the .mat, which automatically produced and synced an xml, that could work

@juneshuoyang
Copy link
Contributor

juneshuoyang commented Aug 17, 2017 via email

@dlevenstein
Copy link
Collaborator

dlevenstein commented Aug 18, 2017

maybe we can give a lot of things dropdown menus, with the ability to add new options that then gets added to everyone's dropdown menu (via buzcode) when they make a new metadata file

this would be especially good for region, experimenter etc

as a side note, for region we probably need like 3 fields: Gross Anatomical Region (HPC,CTX), Region (CA1, mPFC), SubRegion(L5,Pyramidal Layer, etc). I think this matches what they have at Allen... we could even just use the Allen map regions

@brendonw1
Copy link
Collaborator

brendonw1 commented Aug 20, 2017 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment