Permalink
Switch branches/tags
Nothing to show
Find file Copy path
Fetching contributors…
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
273 lines (210 sloc) 13.1 KB

Coordinates Subpackage Plan

authors: Erik Tollerud, Adrian Price-Whelan, Thomas Aldcroft, Thomas Robitalle

date-created: 2014 January 22

date-last-revised: 2014 March 9

date-accepted: 2014 March 9

type: Standard Track

status: Accepted

Abstract

This APE provides a high-level overview of the planned architecture of the astropy.coordinates subpackage for v0.4 and beyond. It is a synthesis of a feedback received from previous versions of the coordinates subpackage and related discussion on astropy-dev and coordinates-related pull requests. The base idea is to split the current coordinate class hierarchy into three sets of classes. data "representation" classes, "low-level" classes that serve both as descriptions of coordinate frames and containers around the data, and a "high- level" class that uses the low-level classes for actual functionality, but provides a more user-friendly interface. The transformation framework will remain essentially unchanged, except that it will operate specifically on the low-level classes.

Detailed description

Background/Terminology

Discussion surrounding the current coordinates API have revealed the importance of shared terminology, as some of the crucial concepts necessary for designing a clean API involve language with subtle (but important) distinctions. Chief among these is the concept of a "coordinate system." To some members of the community, "coordinate system" means the representation of a point in space, e.g., "Cartesian coordinate system" is different from "Spherical polar coordinate system". Another use of "coordinate system" is to mean a unique reference frame with a particular set of reference points, e.g., "the ICRS coordinate system" or the "J2000 coordinate system." This second meaning is further complicated by the fact that such systems use quite different ways of defining a frame.

Because of the likelihood of confusion between theses meanings of "coordinate system", this APE (and the associated coordinates API) will avoid this terminology, and instead adopt the following meanings (loosely inspired by the IAU2000 resolutions on celestial coordinate systems):

  • A "Coordinate Representation" is a particular way of describing a unique point in a vector space. (Here, this means three-dimensional space, but future extensions might have different dimensionality, particularly if relativistic effects are desired.) Examples include Cartesian coordinates, cylindrical polar, or latitude/longitude spherical polar coordinates.
  • A "Reference System" is a scheme for orienting points in a space and describing how they transforms to other systems.Examples include the ICRS, equatorial coordinates with mean equinox, or the WGS84 geoid for latitude/longitude on the Earth.
  • A "Coordinate Frame", "Reference Frame", or just "Frame" is a specific realization of a reference system - e.g., the ICRF, or J2000 equatorial coordinates.For some systems, there may be only one meaningful frame, while others may have many different frames (differentiated by something like a different equinox, or a different set of reference points).
  • A "Coordinate" is a combination of all of the above that specifies a unique point.

This terminology is used by this APE and the associated API document.

Problems with current coordinates subpackage

The current (Astropy v0.2/0.3) coordinates subpackage effectively provides classes to represent common celestial coordinates and transformations between them. It also makes all of the machinery available for subclassing, allowing users to define their own coordinate frames and provide transformations to and from the built-in frames.

In this scheme (motivated mainly by ease of implementation), coordinate representations, reference systems, and frames are mixed together in classes just called e.g., ICRS or FK5. However, comments following implementation of this system has revealed a number of shortcomings regarding this architecture:

  • Quite a bit of boilerplate copy-and-pasting is necessary to define a new reference systems. While some minor modifications might simplify this, it is difficult to ensure this won't have unintended consequences due to the lack of clear separation-of-concerns.
  • There is no reasonable way to define new representations.Some reference systems may be more naturally expressed in e.g. cylindrical coordinates, but defining such a class would require re-implementing nearly everything in the current coordinate classes (which are based on spherical polar coordinates).
  • There has been a large amount of debate and (in some cases, wasted) implementation effort on parsing and formatting coordinate strings.Similarly, parsing of units for coordinate inputs has been subject to debate, change, and confusion.
  • In the current system, one person is often a bottleneck for development of the subpackage because the single class makes it hard to keep a change from not cascading to other parts of the package.

The description below and the API associated with this APE present an approach that addresses these concerns by separating coordinates functionality into a few different class hierarchies, and using it to re-organize (without wasting) the existing code base.

High-level outline of new coordinates classes

The Angle, Latitude, Longitude, and Distance classes will be retained, as well as the current transformations and associated architecture. This represents the bulk of the work that has thus far gone into coordinates. The existing coordinates classes will be sub-divided into three pieces:

  1. Classes for coordinate representations, subclasses of a new abstract class CoordinateRepresentation. These classes store the actual spatial information of a coordinate (or coordinates, if they are arrays) as Quantity subclasses (e.g., Angle, Distance). These classes also provide the methods necessary to transform points from one representation to another, and a single method for invoking these transformations.
  2. A class hierarchy for specifying reference systems and frames (their realization) - the "low-level" coordinate classes. These will be subclasses of CoordinateFrame. While it may at first make sense to separate specifying frames from the actual representations in those frames, doing so would result in a large amount of code duplication, as each system would require two very similar classes for specifying a frame and for the objects containing the representations. Hence, here we combine them into a single class that is a pure frame if it does not have position data, but if it does, is actually a coordinate.
  3. Classes that are containers for the low-level classes, but provide additional functionality to make them easier to use. For example, if created in the FK5 system, it would contain equinox information even if transformed into ICRS (which has no concept of equinox), allowing the high-level class to round- trip transformations. Initially this will be a single class, SkyCoordinate, but might later be expanded to other coordinates that are spatial, but not necessarily celestial (e.g., locations on the surface of the Earth).

By separating the coordinates into these three domains, the aforementioned problems will either be addressed, or made easier to address by dividing the code more logically. Additionally, the new API takes advantage of features that were not available when coordinates was first designed to simplify passing in units (specifically, the use of Quantity objects.)

Connection to "generalized WCS"

A parallel effort currently being pursued by Astropy is an attempt to create a "generalized WCS" subpackage. While still in the planning stages, the basic idea is that this would provide functionality similar to the existing FITS-based World Coordinate System (WCS), but with a generalized Python framework that will help make it easier to map "pixel"/detector coordinates to many different kinds of real-world coordinate frames.

This APE is not intended to replace or duplicate that functionality. Rather, the coordinates API is intended to provide an interface with convenience features that users will find straightforward to work with. At the same time, the cleaner separation of functionality proposed by this APE should make it easier for the generalized WCS subpackage to re- use coordinates functionality.

Branches and pull requests

PR #12 in the astropy-api repository contains the file coordinates_api_2.py that outlines the actual API, and is thus a crucial part of this APE. The PR will be merged if this APE is accepted.

Implementation

This APE can be implemented in separate parts:

  • The low-level classes can be implemented by writing a representation class for spherical and Cartesian coordinates, and then adapting the existing coordinate systems to the new hierarchy. Much of the algorithmic side of the code should be reusable, particularly the transformation functions themselves. This could possibly be done by two people (one working on the representations, another on the frame classes), but it may be more efficient for a single developer to do this.
  • In parallel, the high-level classes can be developed, ideally by an additional developer. This interface with the low-level classes is intended to separate concerns, and is specified in the API document (although some details will no doubt need to be worked out when the coding actually begins).

The above will complete the framework described in this APE. The immediate follow-on work that should be enabled by this will be:

  • Defining locations on the Earth as part of the transform hierarchy. Such location objects will be useful in astropy.time, as well as a planned subpackage for storing observatory locations.
  • Implementing the full ICRS <-> Alt/Az transformation stack, following the IAU2000 algorithms, mostly as implemented in ERFA.This will be simplified greatly by the re-organization described in this APE, as it will be easier to define new reference system/frames, and the IAU2000 stack requires a whole series of such intermediate systems.

Backward compatibility

This will certainly break backwards-compatibility for anything that relies in any way on the internal representations of coordinates in the current version. The "low-level" API will resemble the current coordinates API, but likely with some backwards-incompatible changes. Where possible, we will attempt to keep older interfaces and deprecate them for at least one more version. This breaking of backwards compatibility is acceptable, because it was in the original plan to attempt a few iterations of coordinates, and there is still a big warning that it may change in the future in the current documentation.

Alternatives

A number of different alternatives have been discussed or considered. Below I address a few that led to this APE due to being imperfect solutions, but with some valuable parts.

  • Keep the current system. This is problematic due to reasons described in the description section above.
  • Implement a similar stack, but don't store the representations in the frame classes, instead provide classes for frames and representations, and combine them only in "high-level" classes.This is a possibility, but would require quite a bit of code in the high-level class customized for particular low- level classes.This is mainly because different reference systems have different "preferred" representations (e.g., equatorial systems are traditionally represented in RA/Dec and possibly distance, not Cartesian coordinates). without a way for the frame to convert to its preferred system, there's no easy way to delegate operations like generating reasonable-looking strings or __repr__.
  • Similar stack as this APE, but have the frames without data be a separate class from those with data.This would necessitate making two copies of every class, which would either waste effort or require confusing "magic" with metaclasses. Either way, the proposed APE will probably result in easier-to- understand code, as there will be fewer classes to be familiar with.
  • Have separate classes for each relevant representation of a reference system/frame.This is also possible, and simplifies writing the frame classes, as there is no need to transform to/from the "preferred" representation.However, it makes it very difficult to switch between representations, a task that is crucial for transformations (in most cases they are defined only on Cartesian representations).It also results in more work for any user that wants a custom system but wants to be able to use multiple representations.

Decision rationale

There has been a fair bit of discussion on the API itself, but no objections have been raised for this APE, and it is therefore uncontroversial and has been accepted on March 9th 2014.