canSAS-XI/Software

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Session Notes)
(Session Notes)
Line 7: Line 7:
  
 
== Session Notes ==
 
== Session Notes ==
 
The session began with a presentation by Sven-Jannick Wöhnert on dpdak
 
  
 
Highlights from the discussion include:
 
Highlights from the discussion include:
Line 20: Line 18:
 
** 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 could be a great help in making whats available more accessible
* Scriptable packages in python gives first go at correlation
+
** Would also be good if most highly used packages moved to top so people don't have to read through the entire list always.
 +
* If all packages are designed as scriptable first they can then more easily be pulled into various frameworks to develop different workflows for different communities for example or, more importantly, in frameworks for correlative/multi-modal analysis
 
* Securing funding for long term maintenance and funding
 
* 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?)
+
** 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 ???
 
*** 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?
 
** 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.
 
*** 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
+
** Molecular Simulation by default gives such images - can we leverage the current interest in that software area?
* Get packages to take “STEP files” and convert to scattering
+
** Deep Learning and even correlation analysis could also help this.
 +
** We should just get **all** packages to take appropriate image files (CAD? “STEP files?”) and convert to scattering
 +
*** NOTE added in general discussion: Brian Pauw is developing such a package.  Can't yet handle contrast because the CAD file type does not support color.  Could we use layering? Should co-ordinate with Brian to develop package further for general use.
 
* Workflows for focused problems that give you the 3 parameters that you want
 
* 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.
 
* Networking grants a great idea and some effort since last canSAS but need grants to do actual work.

Revision as of 11:04, 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

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 could be a great help in making whats available more accessible
    • Would also be good if most highly used packages moved to top so people don't have to read through the entire list always.
  • If all packages are designed as scriptable first they can then more easily be pulled into various frameworks to develop different workflows for different communities for example or, more importantly, in frameworks for correlative/multi-modal analysis
  • 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
    • Molecular Simulation by default gives such images - can we leverage the current interest in that software area?
    • Deep Learning and even correlation analysis could also help this.
    • We should just get **all** packages to take appropriate image files (CAD? “STEP files?”) and convert to scattering
      • NOTE added in general discussion: Brian Pauw is developing such a package. Can't yet handle contrast because the CAD file type does not support color. Could we use layering? Should co-ordinate with Brian to develop package further for general use.
  • 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