remove redundant fields from JSON files?

[KrisThielemans]

#18 removed parsing of some fields, which are actually not used by this converter. I feel we should remove them from the sample JSON files as well.

However, I also feel we shouldn't have these JSON fields in this repo at all, but they should be included in the zenodo (now done I think) or dvc downloads.

[nkarakatsanis]

I feel the JSON files are still useful as examples. Perhaps they can be moved in a directory called "examples". I would suggest we comment out (instead f deleting) any unused fields that may be useful in future expansions.

[KrisThielemans]

I don't think JSON allows comments (frustatingly), but @naegelejd can confirm.

[naegelejd]

Correct, no comments in JSON.

You can choose to use comments and "work around" them if you really want to (for example). Otherwise, it's better to just put the example in a Markdown file and treat it as documentation.

[nkarakatsanis]

Yes, thanks for confirming.

It does make sense not to have comments in JSON for interoperability. We can always include comments in GATEROOT libraries handling/parsing the JSON files but not the JSON files themselves.
I also think it is good to include example JSON files in the repo as examples.

[tashimahideaki]

I agree with moving the JSON files to the examples directory and deleting unused fields from the example files. Since JSON does not support comments, the presence of unused fields can make it harder—especially for someone new—to understand the geometry and parameters at a glance. When it's unclear which parameters are actually used to construct a scanner, it takes additional time to check whether each one is read by the program.