[AstroPy] Proliferating py-astro-libs

[Thomas Robitaille]

I agree with the idea of a workshop! (but with few talks, and discussing/deciding/planning/coding would be the majority). 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