BEP001 (#508) introduces the idea of a “grouped scan collection” with respect to certain suffixes. In a recent call with @agahkarakuzu and @emdupre, we talked about the idea of divorcing the idea of grouped scans from specific suffixes, given that some suffixes in BEP001 refer to multiple files from the same acquisition and some refer to multiple files from different acquisitions. Moreover, I’d like to future-proof the concept by not linking “grouped scan collections” to specific suffixes, in case of changes to sequences.
Currently, the specification already has the mechanism (i.e., entities) to support multiple files from a single acquisition, but not multiple files from separate, but associated, acquisitions. If we could add the concept of a grouped scan collection to the common principles, I think that this would make things easier.
Tagging @agahkarakuzu, @emdupre, and @sappelhoff.
BEP001 (#508) introduces the idea of a “grouped scan collection” with respect to certain suffixes. In a recent call with @agahkarakuzu and @emdupre, we talked about the idea of divorcing the idea of grouped scans from specific suffixes, given that some suffixes in BEP001 refer to multiple files from the same acquisition and some refer to multiple files from different acquisitions. Moreover, I’d like to future-proof the concept by not linking “grouped scan collections” to specific suffixes, in case of changes to sequences.
Currently, the specification already has the mechanism (i.e., entities) to support multiple files from a single acquisition, but not multiple files from separate, but associated, acquisitions. If we could add the concept of a grouped scan collection to the common principles, I think that this would make things easier.
Tagging @agahkarakuzu, @emdupre, and @sappelhoff.