@niketan I think it will be diff than python api, this is more of the product where one can execute various R flows plus many helper functions like preprocessor (diff than systemML)
various sampler, various utils so it being the interface is misnomer Alok ________________________________ From: alok singh <singh_a...@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:45 PM To: dev@systemml.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] R4ML Integration with SystemML Sorry missed Matthias second question. Yes we can plan but based on talking to few R users having just DML execute capability vs R like matrix ops , we can discuss but currently it is in not in plan ________________________________ From: alok singh <singh_a...@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:44 PM To: dev@systemml.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] R4ML Integration with SystemML Answers: * Looking over the github repo, apparently R4ML is not under active development/maintenance anymore (last commit Jul 20). So who would be willing to maintain and extend it? ALOK: We will doing development into it . there are open PR already. * Providing wrappers for our algorithm scripts would be just a start because it hides our core value proposition of custom large-scale ML. Hence, we would also need an MLContext equivalent that allows to execute arbitrary DML scripts or R functions. Is there already a tentative design of such an API and if not, who would like to take it over? ALOK: Currently no out of box MLCtx. There is another proposal of exposing linAlg on R using Matrix class but that is on hold (I had discuss with Matthias) > 1) Would they like to merge R4ML code into the main SystemML project ALOK: In R we have to follow a pattern dir structure. we might be able to create more R pacakges. There will be a sub dir in systemML called R or something in that subdir there will be subdir R4ML (one R pacakge) in future more R pacakge as subdir (more details later) > itself? (Currently we have no modules.) > 2) What would they like to merge? ALOK see 1) > 3) If so, how do they propose to do so? ALOK: will explain in future proposal email > 4) Who will do the majority of the work to add R4ML code to SystemML? Or > who would like to volunteer to do this? ALOK: I will do majority of work > 5) Who will maintain the contributed code? Or who would like to volunteer > to do this? ALOK: Alok and Brendan will maintain. > 6) Documentation is needed (fit in SystemML documentation framework). ALOK: as Brendan pointed out R docs are different and we will take care of it . it is self contained > 7) Testing is needed (fit into SystemML testing framework). ALOK: testing will usually by the maven system command exec where it just calls cd <somesubdir> ; ./bin/install_all > 8) How is this packaged? ALOK:subdir ________________________________ From: alok singh <singh_a...@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:38 PM To: dev@systemml.apache.org Subject: [PROPOSAL] R4ML Integration with SystemML Hi All, I just This in ref to the thread using new id so can't reply to thread "[DISCUSS] R-Interface to SystemML" Thanks Deron and Matthias and Niketon for the feedback. I will create the official proposal next week and send the details. I will have some emails now. Here I am just copy pasting the main points by individuals in the stack order Matthis ---------- * Looking over the github repo, apparently R4ML is not under active development/maintenance anymore (last commit Jul 20). So who would be willing to maintain and extend it? * Providing wrappers for our algorithm scripts would be just a start because it hides our core value proposition of custom large-scale ML. Hence, we would also need an MLContext equivalent that allows to execute arbitrary DML scripts or R functions. Is there already a tentative design of such an API and if not, who would like to take it over? Deron -------- Perhaps R4ML committers could supply a little more info? For instance: > 1) Would they like to merge R4ML code into the main SystemML project > itself? (Currently we have no modules.) > 2) What would they like to merge? > 3) If so, how do they propose to do so? > 4) Who will do the majority of the work to add R4ML code to SystemML? Or > who would like to volunteer to do this? > 5) Who will maintain the contributed code? Or who would like to volunteer > to do this? > 6) Documentation is needed (fit in SystemML documentation framework). > 7) Testing is needed (fit into SystemML testing framework). > 8) How is this packaged? > Niketan ---------- Also, comparing the features of R4ML with that of our Python APIs will be useful as it might make a stronger case for R4ML. Alok
