[AstroPy] Proliferating py-astro-libs

Victoria G. Laidler laidler at stsci.edu
Mon Jun 13 16:51:07 EDT 2011


Thomas Robitaille wrote:
> I agree with the idea of a workshop! (but with few talks, and discussing/deciding/planning/coding would be the majority). 
As far as talks go, I can imagine the following two sessions of 
Lightning Talks (informal, 5 min talks) would be very useful:
- Session 1: How I used community code to do my project: how I found it, 
things that worked well, things that were hard
- Session 2: Why I decided to roll my own instead of using code I knew 
was out there: what I tried, what didn't work, what might have convinced 
me to use the existing code

cheers,
Vicki

> I think face to face would be much better than teleconference. I also like the idea of a dedicated workshop, not a splinter.
>
> I suggest that those of us interested in a small workshop see what would be possible in our own institutions. I think in the end we should keep this focused on the development (rather than a general python in astronomy conference). Keeping it small will also make it easier to organize and manage.
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
>
>
> On Monday, June 13, 2011 at 1:43 PM, James Turner wrote:
>   
>> Maybe we should hold an AstroPy conference, where we can discuss
>> co-ordination, get to know each other better and even sit down and
>> work on libraries together (like at SciPy). That might help generate
>> a bit of momentum. Some of us have had meetings before that were
>> full of ideas that didn't go anywhere, but I don't think it has to
>> be that way if active people on the ground are talking to one another
>> rather than having institutions present their plans and try to
>> negotiate at a high level.
>>
>>
>> On 13/06/11 13:25, James Turner wrote:
>>     
>>> It seems that several of us would really like to improve
>>> collaboration on Python libraries but have been struggling to pull
>>> it off. I've raised the same issue on this list in past months, but my
>>> focus has unavoidably been on other things and since I'm wary of
>>> shouting a lot without contributing much, I haven't really been able
>>> to keep the discussion alive...
>>>
>>> I tend to agree with Mark and Stefan about the question of leadership.
>>> Perry & co. at Space Telescope deserve recognition for getting us this
>>> far with things like PyFITS and PyRAF. Others have taken the initiative
>>> with things like astronomical plotting and documentation sprints. We're
>>> still lacking a bit of coherence though, which (as Mark suggests) is
>>> likely to involve one or a few dedicated, energetic, knowledgeable,
>>> hands-on developer(s) who can glue things together. Those people need
>>> to be employed by someone, though, to ensure stability & continuity
>>> (fortunately there's already a bit of that going on at STScI, eg. with
>>> Mike and Matplotlib). Personally, I have the motivation but have not
>>> had the time/independence (and might not be assertive enough).
>>> Apparently we do have several energetic authors in the community now
>>> (like Thomas & Eli), but each with their own project.
>>>
>>> A couple of years ago, a number of us at the observatories submitted a
>>> white paper to the Decadal Survey, pointing out the need for more
>>> co-ordinated funding so that we can have people who focus on cross-
>>> institutional platform development & support. The report from the
>>> committee did give a nod to our concerns and their importance, but
>>> stopped short of making any recommendation, which basically means "good
>>> luck with that". Meanwhile, at Gemini we have had our own problems to
>>> deal with, which make it very difficult for me to propose something
>>> internally beyond working with STScI on the distribution of
>>> dependencies that Perry mentioned. Perhaps someone obtaining a grant
>>> for this is not out of the question though.
>>>
>>> I would like it if we could get together organically behind Astrolib,
>>> but sometimes it's difficult to get people away from their immediate
>>> priorities to focus on that, even within my own institution. If we
>>> could get people dedicated to it, though, it could become indispensable
>>> enough to attract and co-ordinate more effort. I'm just not sure how we
>>> get started at this point and my personal options for tackling the
>>> problem seem limited given the overarching funding transition at Gemini
>>> and the intense focus on projects that are needed to make that work...
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> James.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/06/11 09:48, Perry Greenfield wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On Jun 9, 2011, at 11:12 PM, Thomas Robitaille wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> I just wanted to also add that (in agreement with Marshall) I'm all
>>>>> in favor of many small modules that accomplish a particular task
>>>>> well, rather than packages that aim for a 'do-it-all' approach and
>>>>> fall short. It's always possible to bundle small packages together
>>>>> afterwards, and I don't mean merge development, but instead just
>>>>> bundling the packages for installation (kind of like EPD). I think
>>>>> that is the easiest approach for all of us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe in the long run, a specific set of core packages will emerge
>>>>> as essential and we can then talk about truly merging them into a
>>>>> scipy-like package, but for now, I think the race is still on. And
>>>>> after all, there's nothing to say we *have* to achieve the same
>>>>> setup as in IDL.
>>>>>           
>>>> It sure seems to me that the time is ripe to start trying to coalesce
>>>> some of the ongoing efforts.
>>>>
>>>> Mind you, I don't think it is necessarily good to start with only one
>>>> version. Allowing a few different approaches initially has its
>>>> benefits. You get to see more approaches and ideas in play and having
>>>> experience with them is very helpful in deciding which one is more
>>>> productive. And sometimes there is room for more than one in the long
>>>> run. The different approaches may have their own niches. But it is
>>>> hard to imagine any long-term need for more than two or three
>>>> different approaches.
>>>>
>>>> Early on there are some pragmatic needs for different approaches. For
>>>> example, having a fairly "literal" translation of IDL tools into
>>>> Python has its benefit. It is very useful for those that would like to
>>>> migrate IDL code, and given the existing IDL versions, make it much
>>>> easier to test their correctness. But I don't see this as a substitute
>>>> for a good set of modular tools that have a better object design and
>>>> consistent interfaces with other modules. Doing this is more work and
>>>> will take more time. So a need for both approaches is likely. Some
>>>> could argue the same for replacing IRAF tasks.
>>>>
>>>> All this is much easier said than done of course.
>>>>
>>>> I wish STScI had more resources to devote to this than we've actually
>>>> had. We've been planning to do more on this front than we've actually
>>>> done. Things come up repeatedly that ruin these plans. But it may be
>>>> worth saying where some of our current efforts are going that may
>>>> overlap some of these other efforts.
>>>>
>>>> 1) We've been planning (along with Gemini, and particularly James
>>>> Turner), to try to develop some Sage-like installation package that
>>>> would make it easy to install all the basic tools for most
>>>> astronomers. We had hoped to have a beta version out, but one of the
>>>> people working on this left at the end of last year, and we've not
>>>> been able to replace that person. We are going to continue this effort
>>>> with existing staff though. Hopefully in a few months we'll have
>>>> something to try out.
>>>>
>>>> 2) There is a recognition that a more serious effort needs to be made
>>>> to replace IRAF functionality. Perhaps one of the benefits of a JWST
>>>> delay is that it will allow us to do some of that work more
>>>> explicitly. But we would not do it by replacing IRAF tasks one-for-one
>>>> but coming up with an entirely different approach which has to start
>>>> from the bottom up (the end result could have applications that mostly
>>>> emulate IRAF tasks, but also provide much more modular tools).
>>>>
>>>> 3) More specifically, we are currently focussing on how to handle WCS
>>>> issues in a more general way than they are handled in FITS. If there
>>>> is interest, perhaps we should say more about the intended approach.
>>>> This is particularly important for replacing spectrographic tools in
>>>> IRAF, and this is where we are starting our effort.
>>>>
>>>> 4) We need a way of saving these WCS models, and FITS is not the way.
>>>> We are looking at an alternate data format, not just for WCS models,
>>>> but for data in general [gasp!]. Work has begun on this too.
>>>>
>>>> 5) A lot of our recent work has been on pysynphot and ETCs. We plan on
>>>> making the computational part of our ETCs a released tool. But I'm
>>>> also wondering if we can generalize the pysynphot spectral models for
>>>> more general use in spectral tools.
>>>>
>>>> 6) We have been working on a framework for making pipelines easier to
>>>> build and configure. That won't be ready for at least a few months,
>>>> but could well be of general interest and use.
>>>>
>>>> But besides these things, I would like to see if we can't begin the
>>>> effort of narrowing some of the underlying libraries being used. FITS
>>>> WCS is one obvious area that seems ripe for that.
>>>>
>>>> But the community ought to identify one or two areas that are of the
>>>> most interest in consolidating (let's start small). What should we
>>>> start with? Focus is important in making any progress in this area.
>>>>
>>>> Perry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> AstroPy mailing list
>>>> AstroPy at scipy.org (mailto:AstroPy at scipy.org)
>>>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/astropy
>>>>         
>> -- 
>> James E.H. Turner
>> Gemini Observatory Southern Operations Centre,
>> Casilla 603, Tel. (+56) 51 205609
>> La Serena, Chile. Fax. (+56) 51 205650
>> _______________________________________________
>> AstroPy mailing list
>> AstroPy at scipy.org (mailto:AstroPy at scipy.org)
>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/astropy
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AstroPy mailing list
> AstroPy at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/astropy
>   




More information about the AstroPy mailing list