Adding Software Version to Device Usage

[Peyman-N]

During the review of the neuroimaging extension, MRIScannerUsage, we encountered a problem: most of the scanners have software associated with them. I created this issue to follow up on that discussion.

Luyba:

Question: MRI scanners are always used in connection to a software version (which is functioning as device control system and performs online image processing). I would suggest to link to the Software Version that was used during the Device Usage. Do we need this for all devices as option or is this something scanner specific?

Peyman

Completely agreed. I think adding it to the concept of device usage is more beneficial. There are cases where the device usage doesn't have any software associated with it, for example, the usage of a microtome. However, I think it is present in enough cases to consider it. Anyway, this seems like an important issue and needs more discussion, so I created an issue on OpenMinds-Core to discuss it further.

[lzehl]

follow up question: I assume that the software version or even software could be changed using the same scanner / device (I know that his would be also true for blackrock acquisition systems for example).

[jcolomb]

What about the firmware and firmware version ?

We have the instrument (physical object), following some hardware specification, and running some firmware (code that is essential to the activity of the instrument and is loaded inside the instrument), and software (code running of the computer controlling the instrument and usually doing some data preprocessing.

In theory, each one can be versioned and get a PID (instrument /physical object, hardware type, firmware, software)

[lzehl]

@jcolomb this is a good point. so far I would have categorized firmware as software to be honest (just not running on a users computer but directly as part of the hardware). we will discuss if a distinction in schema is required or if software just needs a specification (on where it can be run which I think we partially do already)

[lzehl]

@jcolomb for firmware and controlling software for devices: Am I right that both can theoretically be updated or replaced at any point in time?

If that is the case then both should be part of device usage schemas, but maybe only specific ones.

@lauramble @Alixbonard @Raphael-Gazzotti @apdavison let's revisit this after the v5.0 release.