Move ASDF.jl to JuliaIO?


Would it make sense to move the ASDF package to JuliaIO? If so, how would I proceed?



I can’t comment on whether you should move the package, but if you do decide to do so, I put together a checklist of steps when transferring a package to a github organization: (you would just need to replace “JuliaRobotics” everywhere with the appropriate organization).


Sure, that’d be great :slight_smile: I see you’re already a member, but you’ll likely need admin rights?


I seem to have admin rights already, but I’d like to know the opinion of others first.



Seems like a good idea to me—having key packages in orgs provides a nice safety net since other people can do things like fix bugs and tag new releases without the original author being obliged to do anything. And it doesn’t prevent you from continuing maintenance as you care to.


ASDF has been initially thought as a format for astronomy data, so I’d suggest to move to JuliaAstro, where we already have FITSIO.jl, the package to read the format that ASDF is meant to replace. Maybe you think that the format can be used also outside astronomy?

Also, are you thinking about having a native Julia implementation in the long term? That could be a good GSoC project for the future, JuliaAstro applies every year under the umbrella of the OpenAstronomy organization


I am using the ASDF format outside astronomy. I see it as a potential replacement for HDF5 (ASDF is a simpler format with fewer features). Nothing in the ASDF format references astronomy, except that there is a standard way to translate FITS to ASDF. I thus prefer JuliaIO over JuliaAstronomy.

I have a C++ implementation of ASDF. It would be straightforward to translate this into native Julia if there was a suitable powerful YAML library available. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be. (ASDF metadata are stored as YAML.)



Well, the paper that introduced the format is titled ASDF: A new data format for astronomy and has been published in the journal Astronomy and Computing. The ASDF standard does mention astronomy several times.

Of course there is no restriction of any kind and the format can be used also outside astronomy, just like FITS format (for example, FITS has been considered for preserving images by the Vatican Library)


When moving something to a group, the main consideration in my view is: maintainers and discoverability.
That the format is for astro doesn’t really count as much - almost every IO package in JuliaIO is actually domain specific, but they still live in JuliaIO and not JuliaTheDomain
If there is a lively community of maintainers that have lots of interest in keeping the format going, I’d say that’d be a good argument for moving it to JuliaAstro.

I like that most IO libraries by now are consistently part of JuliaIO and considering that @schnetter himself doesn’t seem to focus on using ASDF only for astronomy - JuliaIO seems like a good place to me;)


Like BioJulia/YAML.jl? :grimacing:

Wherever the package will go I’ll be happy to contribute, as much as I can :slightly_smiling_face: The ASDF format, together with the FITS format, will be used by the James Webb Space Telescope and it would be great to have a good support for it in Julia.


Oooh. I and there I thought that FITS was so entrenched that it would never go away. I guess an ASDF :left_right_arrow: FITS converter in Julia would be convenient…

There are quite a few “advanced” ASDF features that ASDF.jl does not yet support. I’d be happy to discuss, in particular if your usage model is different from mine. Mine is: (1) data are generated and written in one go, (2) files do not change afterwards (no incremental modifications), (3) analysis often looks only at small fractions of a file.


Regarding BioJulia/YAML.jl: “(Dumping Julia objects to YAML has not yet been implemented.)” So no writer yet…

On the other hand I’ve heard that every JSON file is a legal YAML file; maybe that would provide a work-around? Also, writing is much easier than reading because you can choose the format, e.g. quoting every string.


Well, to be honest I don’t have a usage model as I’ve never used ASDF so far :joy: I heard for the first time about this format a couple of days ago (regarding its use by the JWST) and then saw your message with a perfect timing. I’m probably most interested in reading reading ASDF files, but of course it would be great to have a feature-rich package in the end.