[AstroPy] Proliferating py-astro-libs

Tom Aldcroft aldcroft at head.cfa.harvard.edu
Mon Jun 13 15:07:13 EDT 2011 

What about a splinter meeting at SciPy2011?  I guess the question is
how many interested parties will NOT be there this year.

- Tom

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Kelle Cruz <kellecruz at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think a sit-down is desperately needed to resolve these issues, figure out
> the mgmt structure (aka, pecking order), for the BDFL to emerge, and for
> progress to occur.
> I'd be happy to participate as a non-python/programming expert and maybe
> provide the voice of the "users".
> I propose there be a Splinter Meeting at AAS in Austin. (Splinter Meeting
> deadline is Dec 1.) Or else someone will have to organize at CfA (Tom A?
> Thom R?) or STScI (Marshall? Perry?) since, as far as I can tell, that seems
> to be where most of the movers and shakers in this game are located.
> kelle
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Perry Greenfield <perry at stsci.edu> wrote:
>>
>> That's a good idea.
>>
>> Perry
>>
>> On Jun 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
>> >>> 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
>> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/astropy
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AstroPy mailing list
>> AstroPy at scipy.org
>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/astropy
>
>
>
> --
> Kelle Cruz, PhD — http://kellecruz.com/
> 917.725.1334 — Hunter ext: 16486 — AMNH ext: 3404
>
> _______________________________________________
> AstroPy mailing list
> AstroPy at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/astropy
>
>

More information about the AstroPy mailing list