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

Automatic File Naming Misses Some Sessions in 000971 #1492

Open
pauladkisson opened this issue Jun 19, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Automatic File Naming Misses Some Sessions in 000971 #1492

pauladkisson opened this issue Jun 19, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@pauladkisson
Copy link

Some of the file names in Dandiset 000971 do not contain the post-fix "behavior" despite containing a processing module named behavior just like all the other sessions.

For example, see sub-89-247_ses-FP-PR-2019-03-08T10-59-10.nwb

@yarikoptic
Copy link
Member

We would need more information on how you got those file names -- using dandi organize? (then we should transfer the issue there etc)

@bendichter
Copy link
Member

Yes, I believe this came about using dandi organize, and we should move this to the dandi cli repo.

DANDI CLI determines these names based on the presence of neurodata types, however this misses some cases where it is possible to determine the data types of the file contents in other ways. Here, there is a processing module named "behavior" that only contains an events data type, which is generic and can hold different types of data. The events is named "left nose poke times", so it clearly holds behavioral data, but neither the processing module nor the events data object are behavior-specific so the dandi cli does not label this file as having behavioral data.

The solution I think Paul is suggesting here is to have the DANDI CLI parse that the file contains behavioral data if it contains a processing module named "behavior." This type of processing module comes up a lot because it is one of our recommended names for processing modules: "behavior", "ecephys", "ophys", etc. This is indicated in our best practices document here: https://nwbinspector.readthedocs.io/en/dev/best_practices/nwbfile_metadata.html?highlight=processing#processing-module-names

The question is, do we want to use these types of heuristics to determine the file contents, or do we want to stick to neurodata types?

@yarikoptic yarikoptic transferred this issue from dandi/dandi-archive Aug 22, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants