[SciPy-dev] MCMC, Kalman Filtering, AI for SciPy?
charles.harris at sdl.usu.edu
Tue Sep 28 13:12:28 CDT 2004
Perry Greenfield wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2004, at 7:29 PM, Charles Harris wrote:
>> 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
>>> The current organization of Scipy packages is mostly based on
>>> 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
>>> 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.
> I have a feeling that no matter what classification system is used, so
> long as it
> is purely hierarchical people are going to expect to find an item in
> another area.
> Some things naturally associate with more than one category. Picking a
> good system
> is important, but alone is unlikely to eliminate user frustration in
> finding things.
> I suspect that being able to find tools through keyword associations
> or some other
> means that allows classifying the tool in more than one way will also
> be necessary.
> Mind you, this doesn't need to be reflected in the package structure,
> just that there
> is a way of searching for the tool using alternate associations
> (through web forms,
> a script, or whatever). I think that the documentation system
> (embedded in doc strings
> or similar) should enable this sort of search.
There is some truth in this. There is also the difference between
classifying by tool type, --
hammer, saw, etc. -- and classifying by expected use -- boat building,
house building, etc.
That said, I could see how GAMS would provide a nifty table of contents
for the documentation.
I also felt relief that I could see where several contributions I would
like to add would fit in. I have
felt hesitant to introduce new modules, and I feel the current group is
> Scipy-dev mailing list
> Scipy-dev at scipy.net
More information about the Scipy-dev