Dear All,
First off the efforts of putting the charter together should be applauded and it looks really useful. Sorry this feedback is coming quite late in the day....
I went though some ideas here with Matt earlier and hope these comments/suggestions will be useful:
1)
Agree fully with the control systems inclusion.
2)
I felt the opening line was a little negative and could even offend our many colleagues/developers in the scientific domain who have quite rightly
contributed to make the world a better place despite having “redundant or poorly implemented software”! Matt and I would suggest opening with:
“The science working group works to solve the problems of making science programs inter-operable and interchangeable by defining standards and agreeing
principles. It provides new features and concepts to different research areas which allows serendipitous discoveries to be made and creates/increases markets for SMEs.”
The only concern I have wit this is that this and the original opening statements are aimed probably at a software developer, a scientist (the customers)
may well need a different tone.
3)
Lastly, for us, one of other big benefits we hope to get from this group is information and advice on how we can use or what could be useful from
all the other eclipse projects/initiatives. This could be implied from the Connections with other standards & industry groups, but it might be nice to make this a stronger statement?
Alun
___________________________________________________________
Alun Ashton,
alun.ashton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Tel: +44 1235 778404
Group Leader - Data Analysis Software, www.diamond.ac.uk
Diamond Light Source, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0DE, U.K.
From: Erwin de Ley [mailto:erwin.de.ley@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 10 April 2014 10:03
To: science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [science-iwg] Charter updates
Dear all,
First of all many thanks for all the work done on defining the SWG.
Unfortunately I am not able to participate much at this stage, my apologies.
But I would like to support the proposition from Philip about adding a topic for control systems.
One of the use cases we've seen of scientific workflows is to combine control & data acquisition actions with (limited) near-real-time data analysis, to enable automated feedback loops during a (semi-)automated execution of an experiment. (cfr e.g.
http://www.esrf.eu/UsersAndScience/Publications/Highlights/2012/et/et2)
So extending the scope from mainly data analysis to also include control-related software would certainly be relevant, especially for environments like synchrotrons.
Thanks again and regards,
Erwin.
(http://code.google.com/a/eclipselabs.org/p/passerelle/)
Philip Wenig schreef op 10/04/2014 07:51:
I've added just one more issue to the scope:
10. Control systems for analytical hardware
DESY initiated a project called CSS to control their beamline liquid nitrogen supply:
http://controlsystemstudio.org
Another hardware related project is the Frankencamera:
http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/fcam/
http://techcrunch.com/2009/09/04/stanford-frankencamera-project-aims-to-create-an-open-source-imaging-platform/
Am 10.04.2014 04:04, schrieb Andrew Ross:
OK everyone. Ready for another round of feedback. Please comment in the Google doc or here on the list.
Just in case we missed anyone's previous feedback or suggestions, deep apologies & assurances it was unintentional. Please just let us know.
A reminder to please provide all feedback by end of day Thursday so we can make any adjustments needed and announce it on Friday. Of course additional feedback is welcome during the 30 day review period too!
Thanks so much to the many people that contributed.
Andrew
On 09/04/14 19:45, Andrew Ross wrote:
Jay, Greg
Great work and thank you.
I'm going to do one more pass on the red text & we're open for any final comments or feedback.
Andrew
On 09/04/14 18:07, Jay Jay Billings wrote:
Greg,
Looks great to me!
Jay
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Greg Watson <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jay,
I made some changes to 9 and added a couple of additional sentences. See if it looks ok.
Andrew,
I addressed the scope and tried to "beef it up" to make it a little clearer all of the things that we have discussed. Everyone, please update as you see fit:
-
Standard descriptions and definitions of scientific data.
-
Processing and management of 1D, 2D and 3D data including both structured and unstructured grids.
-
Plotting and visualizations of data in 1D, 2D and 3D.
-
Workflow algorithms and their visualization.
-
Machine learning, artificial intelligence and data mining.
-
Modeling and simulation projects related to the physical sciences, including but not limited to physics, chemistry, biology and geology.
-
Modeling and simulation projects related to the social sciences, including but not limited to sociology and psychology.
-
Applied mathematics projects such as common math libraries and mesh management tools and with the exception of cryptography.
-
Infrastructure to support scientific computing including those tools found in the Eclipse Parallel Tools Platform including job launch and monitoring, parallel debugging and remote project management
for scientific computing.
I wrote bullet 9 as a starting point for the infrastructure/PTP scope. I wanted to make sure that we consider structured and unstructured grids for the data management. I also wanted to expand the machine learning section to include AI
and data mining, which are the first things that a lot of data scientists will ask about if they don't see them listed. I didn't want to exclude agent-based simulations, such as Eclipse AMP (http://eclipse.org/amp/),
which can be used for simulations in the social sciences, so I included them in addition to the blurb on the physical sciences. Likewise, I didn't want to leave out applied mathematics because if we start building a big capability we will not doubt be writing
our own math library or grid/mesh management tools. I left cryptography out because cryptographic routines are export controlled.
I hope this doesn't bother anyone. Like I said, please edit as you see fit!
Jay
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Andrew Ross <andrew.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I've made some edits to clean up the charter, captured a PDF from when it was marked up, and attached it to our meeting minutes in the wiki:
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Science_IWG/April8_2014
If anyone has final comments or feedback, please comment on the document or reply here by end of day Thursday, April 10th.
Baring anything unexpected, we will address anything outstanding, and be in a position to request Mike to announce it on Friday, April 11th. The review period is 30 days. After which we can officially launch the working group.
Work left to do
Thank you everyone for the feedback and suggestions, both in advance of the meeting, during, and on the mailing list afterwards.
In the draft (Google doc), there are a few sections with text I marked as red and attached names to.
Philip, FYI, I've incorporated your suggestion & those of others to come up with something that should work for the 3 participation levels.
Greg, would you please either change the document directly to add a 6th bullet for PTP, or reply here with the text so someone can add it?
Jay, would you please help address your good suggestion/comment about Physical Sciences?
Jay, I'll incorporate your suggestion regarding resource commitment.
I've got a few tweaks I'll wrap up as well.
Andrew
_______________________________________________
science-iwg mailing list
science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Philip Wenig
http://www.openchrom.net
https://www.xing.com/profile/Philip_Wenig
http://de.linkedin.com/pub/philip-wenig/2a/4a8/877
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_______________________________________________
science-iwg mailing list
science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
--
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential, copyright and or privileged material, and are for the use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee or an authorised recipient of the addressee please notify us of receipt by returning the e-mail and do not use, copy, retain, distribute or disclose the information in or attached to the e-mail.
Any opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the individual and not necessarily of Diamond Light Source Ltd.
Diamond Light Source Ltd. cannot guarantee that this e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses and we cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses which may be transmitted in or with the message.
Diamond Light Source Limited (company no. 4375679). Registered in England and Wales with its registered office at Diamond House, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0DE, United Kingdom
|
