[SciPy-dev] MCMC, Kalman Filtering, AI for SciPy?
Travis Oliphant
oliphant at ee.byu.edu
Tue Sep 28 12:09:24 CDT 2004
Pearu Peterson wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Charles Harris wrote:
>
>> eric jones wrote:
>>
>>> Where should these live?
>>> monte carlo and markov chain might fit in scipy.stats?
>>
>>
>> How about in monte_carlo or some such? I think there is too much
>> stuff put in odd places. Why is zeros in optimize? Makes no sense,
>> but there it is. I don't think now is the time to change all the
>> directories around, but I hope we give some thought to the
>> organization before it becomes unmanageable. The Dewey decimal
>> classification was an achievement I am coming to appreciate.
>
>
> I agree that tools provided by Scipy are not organized well with
> respect to the mathematical subject that they deal with and so finding
> the needed tool for some specific task may not be always easy. And I
> agree that this issue should be tackled as early stage as possible in
> Scipy evolution, otherwise it will get more and more difficult to
> decide where to put contributions from the society and there is a
> danger of postponing such decisions to an unreachable future..
>
> The current organization of Scipy packages is mostly based on underlying
> Fortran/C libraries and that is obviously not the best way to organize
> any high-level scientific tool.
>
> While Chuck mentioned Dewey decimal classification then there are other
> classification schemes available. For example, MSC
> (http://www.ams.org/msc/). A nice overview of MSC can be found in
> http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/index/index.html
>
> I don't know how well could these classification schemes be used
> for organizing Scipy packages, may be we should take a look how Matlab
> or Maple or Mathematica deal with organizing their tools.
>
>> From the maintenance point of view, IMHO, wrappers to external Fortran/C
>
> libraries should be refactored from scipy packages to some "lib"
> package. For example, there would be packages like
>
> scipy.lib.blas
> scipy.lib.lapack
> scipy.lib.fftpack
> scipy.lib.minpack
> scipy.lib.cephes
> scipy.lib.odepack
> scipy.lib.quadpack
> scipy.lib.fitpack
> scipy.lib.minpack
> scipy.lib.superlu
> scipy.lib.amos
> scipy.lib.cdflib
> etc
>
I like this idea too.
Right now, we have just been putting the library interfaces in the same
top-level domain as the packages, but I think it does make more sense to
put them in a .lib sub-package which other top-level routines can then
call.
I like this naming discussion. We have not had enough of it in the
past. I guarantee the names and divisions that Pearu, I and Eric have
chosen have been more out of convenience and "getting something" working
then any great thought. I agree we should do this sooner than later.
And I think we should move to SVN too.
I think it would be wise to use some sort of standard convention.
Something like MSC is good, or the NIST classification GAMS.
http://gams.nist.gov/serve.cgi
Right now, we have been sort of using the MATLAB and MAPLE approach
which is group stuff together and give it a package name. MATLAB has
the notion of toolboxes. We could break things up like they do, but I
kind of like the idea of using a more standard convention that is used
by others as well.
-Travis
More information about the Scipy-dev
mailing list