[Numpy-discussion] start of an array (tensor) and dataframe API standardization initiative

[Ralf Gommers]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 10:56 AM Ilhan Polat <ilhanpolat at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is great work. Thanks to everyone who contributed. Very clean
> user-interface too.
>
> One question: Can we propose feature requests already or is that
> discussion closed?
>

It's not closed, this is the start of community review so if things are
missing or need changing, now is a good time to bring them up - please have
a look at CONTRIBUTING.md in the array-api repo.

What I would personally expect is that most discussion will be about the
bigger picture topics and about the clarity of the document. There may be
some individual functions that are important to add, if that's what you
have in mind I would recommend looking at some merged PRs to see how the
analysis is done (e.g. usage data, comparison between existing libraries).
https://github.com/data-apis/array-api/pull/42 is a good example.

Cheers,
Ralf


> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 7:21 PM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'd like to share an update on this topic. The draft array API standard
>> is now ready for wider review:
>>
>> - Blog post: https://data-apis.org/blog/array_api_standard_release
>> - Array API standard document:
>> https://data-apis.github.io/array-api/latest/
>> - Repo: https://github.com/data-apis/array-api/
>>
>> It would be great if people - and in particular, NumPy maintainers -
>> could have a look at it and see if that looks sensible from a NumPy
>> perspective and whether the goals and benefits of adopting it are described
>> clearly enough and are compelling.
>>
>> I'm sure a NEP will be needed for proposing adoption of the standard once
>> it is closer to completion, and work out what that means for interaction
>> with the array protocol NEPs and/or NEP 37, and how an implementation would
>> look. It's a bit early for that now, I'm thinking maybe by the end of the
>> year. Some initial discussion now would be useful though, since it's easier
>> to make changes now rather than when that API standard is already further
>> along.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ralf
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 9:34 PM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'd like to share this announcement blog post about the creation of a
>>> consortium for array and dataframe API standardization here:
>>> https://data-apis.org/blog/announcing_the_consortium/. It's still in
>>> the beginning stages, but starting to take shape. We have participation
>>> from one or more maintainers of most array and tensor libraries - NumPy,
>>> TensorFlow, PyTorch, MXNet, Dask, JAX, Xarray. Stephan Hoyer, Travis
>>> Oliphant and myself have been providing input from a NumPy perspective.
>>>
>>> The effort is very much related to some of the interoperability work
>>> we've been doing in NumPy (e.g. it could provide an answer to what's
>>> described in
>>> https://numpy.org/neps/nep-0037-array-module.html#requesting-restricted-subsets-of-numpy-s-api
>>> ).
>>>
>>> At this point we're looking for feedback from maintainers at a high
>>> level (see the blog post for details).
>>>
>>> Also important: the python-record-api tooling and data in its repo has
>>> very granular API usage data, of the kind we could really use when making
>>> decisions that impact backwards compatibility.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Ralf
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
>> NumPy-Discussion at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>>
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20201111/86cc6cd3/attachment.html>