"...some of the greatest artifacts of the [astronomy] community’s creative problem-solving are at risk of being lost."
I believe this; a good thing, since this is what Peter Teuben and I wrote in We didn’t see this coming: Our unexpected roles as software archivists and what we learned at Preserving.exe, one of three participant reports in "Preserving.exe: Toward a National Strategy for Software Preservation."
This report arose from a summit held at the Library of Congress on May 20-21, 2013 by the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program. Our piece discusses the summit itself, some of what we learned there, and its impact on the way we think about the ASCL and our work. Among the ideas raised at the summit was that of software as a cultural artifact. We wrote:
The Summit broadened our view and appreciation for software as a cultural artifact and as a method of capturing creativity in problem-solving.
Now we see the loss of computational methods that result in research as a loss of part of astronomy’s cultural heritage. This isn’t happening just for astronomy, of course; the Summit made clear that it is happening for everything. With so much rendered digitally, whether born that way or migrated to a digital medium, without preserving the digital artifacts and the software (and sometimes hardware) to lift these artifacts from their digital storage, we risk losing our art, our music, our games, our prose, our data, and our histories, of daily life and activities, of solutions to scientific problems, of popular pastimes and play experiences, and even knowledge of our computer worries and angst.
More on what we learned at the summit is available in the full report, which includes excellent pieces by participants Henry Lowood, Stanford University (The Lures of Software Preservation) and Matthew Kirschenbaum, University of Maryland (An Executable Past: The Case for a National Software Registry), an introduction by Trevor Owens, Library of Congress, and interviews of Doug White of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's National Software Reference Library and Michael Mansfield from the Smithsonian American Art Museum.
PreservingEXE: Toward a National Strategy for Software Preservation
The code sharing crowd took over the AAS Twitter feed, it seems, during the Special Session on code sharing at AAS 223. Bottom up is the best way to read these, as the most recent tweet is on the top, and please note they aren't strictly in order of occurrence and I likely missed some (there were so many!). I'm happy to add those I missed if someone tells me about them. Thanks to all those who tweeted throughout the session!
ASCL
Lucianne Walkowicz
August Muench
Nuria Lorente
Zach Pace
Nuria Lorente
Chrissy Madison
Ben Thompson
Lucianne Walkowicz
Adrian Price-Whelan
Lucianne Walkowicz
Lucianne Walkowicz
August Muench
August Muench
Lucianne Walkowicz
Lucianne Walkowicz
Christopher Hanley
August Muench
Lia Corrales
Lucianne Walkowicz
Ben Cook
Kelle Cruz
Lucianne Walkowicz
Kelle Cruz
Alexa Villaume
Meredith Rawls
Lucianne Walkowicz
August Muench
August Muench
Lucianne Walkowicz
Lucianne Walkowicz
August Muench
Meredith Rawls
Meredith Rawls
Lucianne Walkowicz
Meredith Rawls
Lucianne Walkowicz
Lucianne Walkowicz
Lucianne Walkowicz
Lia Corrales
Lucianne Walkowicz
Lucianne Walkowicz
Lucianne Walkowicz
Lucianne Walkowicz
Lucianne Walkowicz
Lucianne Walkowicz
Ben Thompson
Lucianne Walkowicz
Lucianne Walkowicz
Lucianne Walkowicz
Alexa Villaume
Laura Watkins
Ian Paul Freeley
Ben Thompson
Meredith Rawls
August Muench
Lucianne Walkowicz
Lucianne Walkowicz
Lucianne Walkowicz
Matthew Turk
Lucianne Walkowicz
Laura Watkins
August Muench
August Muench
Lucianne Walkowicz
Lucianne Walkowicz
Lucianne Walkowicz
Lucianne Walkowicz
Lucianne Walkowicz
August Muench
August Muench
Ben Thompson
Kelle Cruz
Lucianne Walkowicz
Lucianne Walkowicz
Lucianne Walkowicz
Ben Thompson
Lucianne Walkowicz
August Muench
August Muench
David Morrison
Lucianne Walkowicz
August Muench
Ian Paul Freeley
Alex Parker
Dr Chris Tibbs
Kelle Cruz
Alexa Villaume
August Muench
Meredith Rawls
Lucianne Walkowicz
Timothy Pickering
Lucianne Walkowicz
Kelle Cruz
Kelle Cruz
Lucianne Walkowicz
Ben Thompson
August Muench
August Muench
Lucianne Walkowicz
August Muench
Michelle Collins
Laura Watkins
Kelle Cruz
Laura Watkins
Meredith Rawls
Michelle Collins
Ben Thompson
Erik Tollerud
Benjamin Weiner
ADASS
Benjamin Weiner
Astropy @astropy 6 Jan
At the #aas223? Don't miss Tuesday's 14:00-15:30 session on code sharing - including a talk by @eteq about @astropy!
David W. Hogg On Tuesday, January 7, the AAS Working Group on Astronomical Software (WGAS) and the ASCL sponsored a special session on code sharing as a follow up to the splinter meeting “Astrophysics Code Sharing?” held at AAS 221. We continue the dialogue for ways to improve the transparency and efficiency of research by sharing codes and to mitigate the negative aspects of releasing them.

Before the session started, however, there were a few nerve-wracking moments; weather- and Amtrak-related delays had one of the presenters arriving at AAS at 2:40 AM the day of the session rather than before lunch on Monday, and another getting to AAS after the session had started (!) but before his talk was to begin. So yes! There were minutes to spare!
The standing-room-only session was moderated by Peter Teuben of the University of Maryland and chairman of the ASCL Advisory Committee; Robert Hanisch, STScI, outgoing chair of the WGAS and also a member of the ASCL Advisory Committee, provided closing remarks. Those not in the room were not without news of what was being said in it, as there was much tweeting about the session (#aas223, #astroCodeShare).
Peter started the session by introducing the speakers (present or not) and explaining a bit how the session would work: code case studies would have 2-minute question periods for any clarifications or questions about the cases themselves, and other questions would be deferred until the open discussion period, which was approximately the latter half of the session.
Presentations
A very brief summary of some main points of the sessions, along with their titles, presenters, and links to slides where applicable, is given here.
Discussion
After David's presentation, Peter opened the floor for questions and discussion, and Kelle Cruz from Hunter College was ready! Kelle said that AAS should require code release and then asked whether anyone from the AAS journals was present. There was not.

Kelle then suggested to Daniel Katz that the NSF should take stronger role in enforcement. Dan said he will see what he can do to get astronomy reviewers training for what to look for, and that he already does this for his area. David Hogg said there aren't any mechanisms for long-term stewardship of software and asked whether the NSF was looking at this. Dan said it is not at this time, and that the NSF generally avoids long-term commitment of funds.
Someone in the back of the room pointed out that protection of code can also lead to the protection of errors, told a sad anecdote to illustrate that point, and commented that code sharing fosters improvements in coding practice. In response to a question about whether it was worthwhile to share very specific code, David answered yes, just post it, that if it's not useful to others, so what? But it just might be! And Benjamin Weiner suggested the code be put in GitHub.
Two questions came from someone else in the back of the room, one on whether export control restrictions (ITAR) would be changing; the second question relayed that PhD students write a code for their thesis but then protect it because, in their perception, the code makes them employable, and did the panel have anything to say about that? Erik Tollerud made the point that people are hired for the skills that went into creating the code, not for a particular code. David replied that he has seen this with data, that proprietary data does sometimes give someone leverage for employment. Dan answered the ITAR question by saying that changes in ITAR were probably not going to happen soon.
Another attendee asked about the cost of making code shareable, of what that cost is, and felt that the panelists had swept it under the rug. Ben replied that it's a community problem, the community needs to reward it, and there needs to be a values change. In the meantime, put it out there anyway; clean it up if you can, but put it out. David agrees there are costs, but the benefits are more substantial than the costs. The cost is not very large and the upside is larger than the downside. Bruce thinks it is worth the effort to plan upfront; that will save time/money later on. This is harder if the code is not initially planned, but one should try to address this when possible.
Nuria Lorente, who was following the session from Australia through Twitter, tweeted that "NOT releasing code also comes at a price, which is often forgotten."
Andrej Prsa from Villanova made a strong appeal to post code to arXiv; he stated that astro-ph should be open to other things beside preprints. Someone else pointed out that arXiv doesn't necessarily agree. David said that he put the documentation for emcee, the MCMC hammer on arxiv and that gets cited. Erik made the point about additional contributors to a software development project such as Astropy don't get credit if they are not on the author list on the paper uploaded to arXiv. Alberto Accomazzi from ADS mentioned that updating the author list on arXiv was a way to fix that and give others credit, even though that will not be reflected on ADS.
Someone commented on the need for some sort of code sharing infrastructure to help with sharing. David commented that he wants all flowers to bloom, but some flowers are more valuable than others. Erik said that better search engines over time will help, that Astropy is more findable because of better search engines and because more people now link to it. It was mentioned that with more code sharing, finding useful codes may become more difficult as the signal to noise ratio goes down.
Alberto Accomazzi brought up the uncertain provenance of code, code that does not have a license, and sometimes no author, attached to it, and stated that it is hard to deal with because it cannot be shared. This was echoed by David, who pointed out that a lack of a license for a code can prevent release. Bruce suggested a licensing workshop would be a good idea, and this idea got traction among attendees. The recent re-licensing of yt was brought up. Dan Katz looks specifically for licensing information when looking at proposal, and it's clear to him that many people don't know what they are doing on this and could use guidance. David suggested that people use BSD or MIT licenses if they know nothing about licensing.
Peter Teuben then brought the discussion to an end and turned the podium over to Robert Hanisch for closing remarks.
Session wrapup
Robert Hanisch reiterated that software sharing is fundamental to the dissemination and validation of research results, and though there are carrots and sticks for software sharing, the sticks are not very strong. He also pointed out that nothing within the funding agencies offers support for software development and that there is a disconnect between national policy and implementation. Journals at best only encourage code release, too; they do not require it. A sociological change is necessary; in the meantime, he hopes those attending will just put codes out there! The benefits outweigh the costs.
He talked also about opportunity for change; as of Sunday January 5, the Working Group on Astronomical Software has Frossie Economou as its new chair, and that over the weekend, the Council of AAS had suggested that the WGAS be elevated from a Working Group to a Division within AAS. He had requested that the Council have the WGAS offer a prize specifically for software, and though the Council did not accept the idea upon presentation, Bob noted that a Division can award prizes independently. Having a Division focused on software will also provide more visibility for it, and on this hopeful note, the session ended.
... though the discussion continues...
My thoughts (just a few)
This is the fourth discussion session the ASCL has arranged; previous sessions include one at AAS 221 and two at the previous two ADASS meetings. (Links to materials or discussion from previous sessions are below.)
I was glad to hear several of the presenters say the concerns people have about releasing their codes are overplayed. I was particularly happy when David said that if people would only go ahead and release their imperfect software, other people would see that released codes are also imperfect and thus feel more emboldened to release their own imperfect work. Yes! Lose the fear, gain the codes! It really doesn't need to be perfect; Nick Barnes, among others, have written eloquently, or amusingly, on this subject already. Astronomical software wants to be free; please release it, let it show!
It was hard for me to stay silent when the need for a code sharing infrastructure was mentioned, not because I disagree with the need -- I believe the need is very great! -- but because the ASCL is trying hard to help with that. I've looked at other similar efforts tried over the years, and either they have started, lived (usually briefly) and in one case, even flowered, and died, or they still exist but are mostly silent and their efforts in code sharing dormant. The ASCL has been around since 1999 and is indexed by ADS, and use of it has been increasing. It's not perfect, but it does work and is actively growing.
I believe that science should be as transparent as possible, that code release (absent ITAR and other truly compelling reasons) even if only for examination, not reuse, is part of this transparency, and that ultimately, code release is better for code authors, especially if the astronomy community works together to make it better for them. Code sharing can make astronomy more efficient, too, which is especially important in the current financial climate.
Finally, I want to thank Peter for moderating the session, Bob for offering closing remarks, and the most excellent Ben, Bruce, Gary, Erik, Dan, and David for presenting at this session and also for not protesting even one time about the innumerable emails they received from me from May on. I also have to thank our wonderful volunteer whose name I did not get, alas, for her great work and for counting the 149 (!) attendees, the AAS for accepting the proposal in the first place, and the amazing people who sent this session literally around the world through their tweets. Thank you!
AAS 221 Astronomy Code Sharing? links
Announcement
Omar Laurino joins Astronomy Code Sharing panel
Brief blog post
Astronomy Computing Today post
Slides used at meeting: Google Doc PDF
ADASS XXIII (2013) links
Announcement
Our eight questions
The eight questions that were discussed/links to discussion notes
Pre-print of proceedings paper
ADASS XXII (2012) links
Birds of a Feather session
Resources used/linked to for ADASS
Pre-print of proceedings paper
The ASCL will be at the AAS meeting in (not quite) Washington, DC next week; I'll be handing out (non-glowing) pens like crazy at both the ASCL poster (255.25, titled You’ve Written a Cool Astronomy Code! Now What Do You Do with It?) and the Special Session (more information below) on Tuesday, too. I hope you'll stop by the poster to say hi, talk codes, and grab a pen!
The AAS's Working Group on Astronomical Software (WGAS) and the ASCL are holding a Special Session on code sharing that includes presentations and an open discussion. Peter Teuben and Robert Hanisch will moderate the session, which will be held on Tuesday, January 7, 2:00 to 3:30 in National Harbor 5, Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center.
The panelists and topics for the session are:
Benjamin J. Weiner, Occupy Hard Drives: Making your work more valuable by giving it away
G. Bruce Berriman, Maintaining a user community for the Montage Image Mosaic Toolkit
Gary J. Ferland, Cloudy - the non-equilibrium microphysics of gas and dust, and its observed spectrum
Daniel S. Katz, NSF policies on software and data sharing and their implementation
Erik J. Tollerud, The Astropy Project's self-herding cats development model
David W. Hogg, Costs and benefits of developing out in the open
After the presentations, Peter will open the floor for questions and discussion; at the end of the discussion, Bob will summarize the themes and points and will close the Special Session.
We'll be tweeting, too, especially during the Special Session on Tuesday: @asclnet or #asclnet. See you (in person or online) next week!
Peter Teuben moderated today's BoF, which asked participants to brainstorm ideas for dealing with three categories of concerns: factors which inhibit code sharing, factors which encourage sharing, and overall community issues. The questions were in yesterday's blog post, along with a link to the introductory slides for the session. One of the questions posed was not selected for discussion; another was proposed by participant William O'Mullane (what tools are available for sharing code?).
Each discussion group discussed one of eight questions; people were given the opportunity to move to another group for a second discussion. Scribes captured the ideas and comments of participants; the resulting documents can be found by following the links below.
My thanks to Jessica Mink, Kimberly DuPrie, Omar Laurino, Mark Taylor, Bruce Berriman, Bob Hanisch, Kai Polsterer, and William O'Mullane for scribing, to Nuria Lorente for tweeting about the session, and to Peter Teuben for his leadership!
Please feel free to add your own comments directly in the documents!
| Messy code Google doc Expectations of support University policies Recognition by citation |
Impact Google doc Journals and funding agencies Google doc Community at large Tools for sharing code |
... are being posed in the Ideas for Advancing Code Sharing (or A Different Kind of Hack Day) Birds of a Feather (BoF) session at ADASS. The eight questions ask how to deal with three categories of concerns: factors which inhibit sharing, factors which encourage sharing, and overall community issues. The questions are below; do you have answers to them? Please share them if you do!
The introductory slides for the BoF are available online. We will post what comes out of the discussions shortly after the BoF.
Mitigating inhibitors
How do we encourage release even if the code is "messy"?
How do we reduce expectations of support when coders don’t want to support code and still encourage code release?
How can universities be convinced to change policies which prohibit software publication?
Increasing incentives
What can we do to encourage citations for codes?
Beyond citations, what can we do to give code authors recognition for writing and releasing their software?
How can we measure the impact of a code on research and its value to the community?
Community factors
What roles might journal publishers and funding agencies have in furthering code release, and how can the community influence them to take on that role?
What else can we do to have code release recognized as an essential part of research reproducibility
The ASCL is participating in ADASS in the following ways:
Not going to ADASS but want to participate in the BoF session? We'd love to have your input and ideas. We'll be running a Twitter feed running throughout the BoF (follow @asclnet). What else might work for you?
The ASCL, along with the AAS’s Working Group on Astronomical Software (WGAS), is coordinating a Special Session at the January 2014 AAS meeting. This session is scheduled for 2:00 PM on January 7, and will feature case studies on code release for AstroPy, Montage, and Cloudy in addition to talks on the state of code sharing and funding agencies’ policies.
The session will be moderated by Peter Teuben and Robert Hanisch; the speakers for this session are:
G. Bruce Berriman, NExScI, PAC, Caltech
Gary J. Ferland, University of Kentucky
David W. Hogg, New York University
Daniel S. Katz, National Science Foundation
Erik J. Tollerud, Yale University
Benjamin J. Weiner, University of Arizona
After the presentations, the floor will be opened for discussion on ways to encourage code sharing to improve the transparency and efficiency of research and mitigate the negative aspects of releasing code.
Today I was reading the draft of an upcoming thesis defense in our library, and noted the student in question had been using a nice number of codes to support her research. All properly referenced via footnotes, and even some routine names in a "typewriter" font to make them stand out.
Later that afternoon after the weekly graduate un-journal club talk she gave, we and another graduate student got to talking about the ASCL, and explaining to them the triad of paper/data/code that one can view as the three ways our research is now peer review published. In fact, if you look at some recent publications, just after the Acknowledgements, you can find a "Facilities:" line, in which the various facilities (read: observatory/instrument pairs) are listed from which the data in this particular paper were used. We in ASCL have been suggesting that one should add a "Codes:" line as well, with (ASCL) codes used in the paper. Now that ASCL entries are searchable via ADS, there is no reason not to make searching for codes in papers easier. In fact, if you look at the next ADASS conference proceedings, you will find a separate ASCL index in the back of the book!
What do people think, should we ask the editors of journals to make this "Codes:" line a standard feature of papers?

On May 20 and 21, the Library of Congress's Digital Preservation program held Preserving.exe: Toward a National Strategy for Preserving Software, which focused on preserving software as digital artifacts of life in the late 20th-early 21st century. Robert Hanisch, Peter Teuben, and Alice Allen attended, and Peter, chair of our Advisory Committee, presented a talk on the ASCL. The slides from Peter's talk are now available online.