Artikel mit Tag Semantics:

  • DaCHS 2.2 is out

    Image: DaCHS "entails" 2.2

    DaCHS 2.2 adds support for what simple semantics we currently do in the VO. Which is a welcome excuse to abuse one of the funny symbols semanticians love so much.

    Today, I've released DaCHS 2.2, the second stable version of DaCHS running on Python 3. Indeed, we have ironed out a few sore spots that have put that “stable” into question, especially if you didn't run things on Debian Buster. Mind you, playing it safe and just going for Debian is still recommended: Compared to the Python 2 world, where things largely didn't break for a decade, the Python 3 universe is still shaking out, and so the versions of dependencies do matter. It's actually fairly gruesome how badly pyparsing 2.4 will break DaCHS. But that's for another day.

    Despite this piece of fearmongering, it'd be great if you could upgrade your installations if you are running DaCHS, and it's pretty safe if you're on Debian buster anyway (and if you're running Debian in the first place, you should be running buster by now).

    Here are the more notable changes in this release:

    • DaCHS can now (relatively easily) write time series in the form of what Ada Nebot's Time Series Annotation note proposes. See the tutorial chapter on building time series for how to do that in practice. Seriously: If you have time series to publish, by all means try this out. The specification can still be fixed, and so this is the perfect time to find problems with the plan.
    • The 2.2 release contains support for the MOC ADQL functions mentioned in the last post on this blog. Of course, to make them work, you will still have to acquaint your database with the new functionality.
    • DaCHS has learned to use IVOA vocabularies as per the current draft for Vocabularies in the VO 2. The most visible effect for you probably is that DaCHS now warns if your subject keywords are not taken from the Unified Astronomy Thesaurus (UAT) – which they almost certainly are not, because the actual format of these keywords is a bit funky. On the other hand, if you employ the “plain” root page template (see the root template in our templating guide if you are not sure what I am talking about here), you will get nice, human-friendly labels for the computer-friendly terms you ought to put into subjects. In case you don't bother: Given I'm currently serving as chair of the semantics working group of the IVOA, the whole topic will certainly come up again soon, and at that point I will probably also talk about another semantics-related newcomer to DaCHS, the gavo_vocmatch ADQL UDF.
    • There is a new command dachs datapack for interacting with frictionless data packages. The idea is that you can say dachs datapack create myres/q myres.pack and obtain an archive of all that is necessary to re-create myres on another DaCHS installation, where you would say dachs datapack load myres.pack. Frankly, this isn't much different from just tarring up the resource directory at this point, except that any cruft that may have accumulated in the directory is skipped and there is a bit of structured metadata. But then interoperability always starts slowly. Note, by the way, that this certainly does not teach DaCHS to do anything sensible with third-party data packages; while I've not thought hard about this, as it seems a remote use case, I am pretty sure that even the “tabular data packages” that refine the rough general metadata quite a bit simply have nowhere near enough metadata to create a useful VO resource or TAP table.
    • As part of my never-ending struggle against bitrot (in case you've always wondered what “curation” means: that, essentially), I'm running dachs val -vc ALL in my own data center once every month. This used to traverse the file system to locate all RDs defined on a box and then make sure they are still ok and their definitions match the database schema. That behaviour has now changed a bit: It will only check published RDs now. I cannot lie: the main reason for the change is because on my production machine the file system traversal has taken longer and longer as data accumulated. But then beyond that there is much less to worry when unpublished gets a little bit mouldy. To get back the old behaviour of validating all RDs that are reachable by the server, use ALL_RECURSE instead of ALL.
    • DaCHS has traditionally assumed that you are running multiple services on one site, which is why its root page is rendered over a service that exposes metadata on local resources. If that doesn't quite work for how you use DaCHS – perhaps because you want to have your own custom renderers and data functions on your root page, perhaps because you only have one browser-based service and that should be the root page right away –, you can now override what is shown when people access the root URI of your DaCHS installation by setting the [web]root config item to the path of the resource you want as root (e.g., myres/q/s/fixed when the root page should be made by the fixed renderer on the service s within the RD myres/q).
    • Scripting in DaCHS is a powerful way to execute python or SQL code when certain things happen. That seems an odd thing to want until you need it; then you need it badly. Since DaCHS 2.2, scripts executed before or after the creation of a table, before its deletion, or after its meta data has been updated, can sit on tables (where they have always belonged). Before, they could only be on makes (where they can still sit, but of course they are then only executed if the table is operated through that particular make) and RDs (from where they could be copied). That latter location is now forbidden in order to free up RD scripts for later sanitation. Use STREAM and FEED instead if you really used something like that (and I'd bet you don't).
    • Minor behavioural changes:
      1. Due to a bug, you could write things like <schema foo="bar">my_schema<schema>, i.e., have attributes on attributes written in element form. That is now flagged as an error. Since that attribute was fed to the embedding element, you might need to add it there.
      2. If you have custom flot plots in one of your templates (and you don't if you don't know what I'm talking about), you now have to set style to Points or Lines where you had usingIndex 0 or 1 before.
      3. The sidebar template no longer has links to a privacy policy (that few bothered to fill out). See extra sidebar items in the tutorial on how to get them back or add something else.

    The most important change comes last: The default logo DaCHS shows unless you override it is no longer the GAVO logo. That's, really, been inappropriate from the start. It's now the DaCHS logo, the thing that's in this posts's article image. Which isn't quite as tasteful as the GAVO one, true. But I trust we'll all get used to it.

  • Building consensus

    image: Markus, handwringing

    Sometimes, building consensus takes a little bending: Me, at the Shanghai Interop of 2017. In-joke: there's “STC” on the slide.

    In the Virtual Observatory, procedures are built on consensus: No (relevant) decisions are passed based some sort of majority vote. While I personally think that's a very good thing in general – you really don't want to clobber minorities, and I couldn't even give a minimal size of such a minority below which it might be ok to ignore them –, there is a profound operational reason for that: We cannot force data centers or software writers to comply with our standards, so they had better agree with them in the first place.

    However, building consensus (to avoid Chomsky's somewhat odious notion of manufacturing consent) is hard. In my current work, this insight manifests itself most strongly when I wear my hat as chair of the IVOA Semantics Working Group, where we need to sort items from a certain part of the world into separate boxes and label those, that is, we're building vocabularies. “Part of the world” can be formalised, and there are big phrases like “universe of discourse” to denote such formalisations, but to give you an idea, it's things like reference frames, topics astronomy in general talks about (think journal keywords), relationships between data collections and services, or the roles of files related to or making up a dataset. If you visit the VO's vocabulary repository, you will see what parts we are trying to systematise, and if you skim the current draft for the next release of Vocabularies in the VO, in section two you can find a few reasons why we are bothering to do that.

    As you may expect if you have ever tried classifications like this, what boxes (”concepts” in the argot of the semantics folks) there should be and how to label them are questions with plenty of room for dissent. A case study for this is the discussion on VEP-001 and its successors that has been going on since late last year; it also illustrates that we are not talking about bikeshedding here. The discussion clarified much and, in particular, led to substantial improvements not only to the concept in question but also far beyond that. If you are interested, have a look at a few mail threads (here, here, here, or here; more discussion happened live at meetings).

    An ideal outcome of such a process is, of course, a solution that is obvious in retrospect, so everyone just agrees. Sometimes, that doesn't happen, and one of these times is VEP-001 and the VEP-003 it evolved into. A spontanous splinter between sessions of this week's Virtual Interop yielded two rather sensible names for the concept we had identified in the previous debates: #sibling on the one hand, and #co-derived on the other (in case you're RDF-minded: the full vocabulary URIs are obtained by prefixing this with the vocabulary URI, http://www.ivoa.net/rdf/datalink/core). Choosing between the two is a bit of a matter of taste, but also of perhaps changing implementations, and so I don't see a clear preference. And the people in the conference didn't reach an agreement before people on the North American west coast really had to have some well-deserved sleep.

    In such a situation – extensive discussion yields some very few, apparently rather equivalent solution –, I suspect it is the time to resort to some sort of polling after all. So, in the session I've asked the people involved to give their pain level on a scale of 1 to 10. Given there are quite a few consensus scales out there already (I'm too lazy to look for references now, but I'll retrofit them here if you send some in), I felt this was a bit hasty after I had closed the z**m^H^H^H^H telecon client. But then, thinking about it, I started to like that scale, and so during a little bike ride I came up with what's below. And since I started liking it, I thought I could put it into words, and into a form I can reference when similar situations come up in the future. And so, here it is:

    Markus' Pain Level Scale

    1. Oh wow. I'm enthusiastic about it, and I'd get really cross if we didn't do it.
    2. It's great. I don't think we'll find a better solution. People better have really strong reasons to reject it.
    3. Fine. Just go ahead.
    4. Quite reasonable. I have some doubts, but I either don't have a good alternative, or the alternatives certainly won't improve matters.
    5. Reasonable. I can live with it, possibly accepting a very moderate amount of pain (like: change an implementation that I think is fine as it is).
    6. Sigh. I don't like it much. If you think it's useful, do it, but don't blame me if it later turns out it stinks.
    7. Ouch. I wish we didn't have to go there. For instance: This is going to uglify a few things I care about.
    8. Yikes. I think it's a bad idea. Honestly, let's not do it. It's going to make quite a few things a lot uglier, though I give you it might still just barely work.
    9. OMG. What are you thinking? I won't go near it, and I pity everyone who will have to. And it's quite likely going to blow up some things I care about.
    10. Blech. To me, this clearly is a grave mistake that will impact a lot of things very adversely. If I can do anything within reason to stop it, I'll do it. Consider this a veto, and shame on you if you override it.

    You can qualify this with:

    +:I've thought long and hard about this, and I think I understand the matter in depth. You'll hence need arguments of the profundity of the Earth's outer core to sway me.
    (unqualified):I've thought about this, and as far as I understand the matter I'm sure about it. More information, solid arguments, or a sudden inspiration while showering might still sway me.
    -:This is a gut feeling. It could very well be phantom pain. Feel free to try a differential diagnosis.

    If you like the scale, too, feel free to reference it as href="https://blog.g-vo.org/building-consensus/#scale">https://blog.g-vo.org/building-consensus/#scale.

« Page 2 / 2