canSAS-XI/Software

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Discussion session on Software)
(Session Notes)
Line 12: Line 12:
 
Highlights from the discussion include:
 
Highlights from the discussion include:
 
* It seems that there are a number of packages that are being developed with similar plugin architectures in python
 
* It seems that there are a number of packages that are being developed with similar plugin architectures in python
** Noted that more than one is important
+
** A true monoculture is probably not healthy
** But there does seem to be an insatiable and unstoppable need to re-invent the wheel myself:
+
** But there does seem to be an insatiable and unstoppable need for everyone to re-invent the wheel. **Question:** what drives that?
*** question is what drives that?
+
*** Desire to be able to respond to ones users in a timely fashion? --> collaborative software development?
**** Need to have access
+
*** Desire to get recognition by doing something believed to be better?
**** Desire to do "better" and get recognized?
+
*** Perhaps biggest may be lack of good understanding of what exists and/or how to collaborate on it?
**** Lack of "advertising" - Dissemination should work on reaching instrument scientists and potential developers about what is already there
+
* Dissemination should work on reaching instrument scientists and potential developers as well as users about what is already there
* Lots of “advertising needs”
+
** Lots of “advertising needs”
* Youtube for users but also beamline scientists
+
** Youtube for users but also beamline scientists
* Add citations and activity etc for packages on canSAS portal page
+
** Add citations and activity etc for packages on canSAS portal page
* Being able to respond to ones users
+
 
* Scriptable packages in python gives first go at correlation
 
* Scriptable packages in python gives first go at correlation
* Software as Infrastructure
+
* Securing funding for long term maintenance and funding
** PANOSC and OSC
+
** Can we reposition analysis software as infrastructure.  In europe there is an evolving new infrastructure funding model which would support infrastructure indefinitely (presumably as long as it is a useful infrastructure?)
* Facilities? Would require getting everyone with any effort in SAS analysis software identified and together to discuss “infrastructure” support models
+
*** PANOSC and ???
 +
** Alternatively Facilities presumably have a need for users to have adequate analysis software.  Problem is prohibitive cost. So can we bring the costs into a realistic range?
 +
*** This would probably require collaboratively maintaining and developing the critical packages and/or infrastructure. That would require getting everyone with any effort in SAS analysis software identified and together to discuss “infrastructure” support models.
 
* 3D pictures needed or our community becomes road kill
 
* 3D pictures needed or our community becomes road kill
 
* Use molecular simulation and correlation analysis.  ML could also help
 
* Use molecular simulation and correlation analysis.  ML could also help

Revision as of 09:52, 11 July 2019

Discussion session on Software

Chair : Paul Butler

Session Plenary Overview : Water water everywhere, nor any drop to drink.

Sven-Jannick Wöhnert : <<dpdak slides go here>>

Session Notes

The session began with a presentation by Sven-Jannick Wöhnert on dpdak

Highlights from the discussion include:

  • It seems that there are a number of packages that are being developed with similar plugin architectures in python
    • A true monoculture is probably not healthy
    • But there does seem to be an insatiable and unstoppable need for everyone to re-invent the wheel. **Question:** what drives that?
      • Desire to be able to respond to ones users in a timely fashion? --> collaborative software development?
      • Desire to get recognition by doing something believed to be better?
      • Perhaps biggest may be lack of good understanding of what exists and/or how to collaborate on it?
  • Dissemination should work on reaching instrument scientists and potential developers as well as users about what is already there
    • Lots of “advertising needs”
    • Youtube for users but also beamline scientists
    • Add citations and activity etc for packages on canSAS portal page
  • Scriptable packages in python gives first go at correlation
  • Securing funding for long term maintenance and funding
    • Can we reposition analysis software as infrastructure. In europe there is an evolving new infrastructure funding model which would support infrastructure indefinitely (presumably as long as it is a useful infrastructure?)
      • PANOSC and ???
    • Alternatively Facilities presumably have a need for users to have adequate analysis software. Problem is prohibitive cost. So can we bring the costs into a realistic range?
      • This would probably require collaboratively maintaining and developing the critical packages and/or infrastructure. That would require getting everyone with any effort in SAS analysis software identified and together to discuss “infrastructure” support models.
  • 3D pictures needed or our community becomes road kill
  • Use molecular simulation and correlation analysis. ML could also help
  • Get packages to take “STEP files” and convert to scattering
  • Workflows for focused problems that give you the 3 parameters that you want
  • Networking grants a great idea and some effort since last canSAS but need grants to do actual work.


Google Doc With Notes

Actions

  • Video tutorials for selecting software program(s) - Assigned to: TBD
  • Smallangle.org: Separate out highly used software and mark supported vs unsupported - Assigned to: TBD
  • Software usage across different facilities - Assigned to: TBD
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
canSAS Meetings
canSAS Working Groups
Navigation
Toolbox