2024-11-20 Thompson/Wagner Check-in meeting notes

Participants

  • @Matt Thompson

  • @Jeffrey Wagner

Discussion topics

Item

Notes

Item

Notes

General updates

  • MT

  • JW

    • Did I get monthly goals right for ad board? I was preparing after hours and didn’t want to bother you but realized that I’m less aware of what you’re working on with agile/big picture style planning is less evident (but perhaps less necessary). I think solution is for me to start joining planning meetings.

      • MT – Yes, please join sprint planning. Next one will be Dec 2

        • JW – Good, I’ll join that.

      • MT – You kinda got monthly goals right. There’s kinda a vacuum of establishing larger goals. I would need more guidance from org level about big objectives to plan my monthly objectives. So I think this is where JW and JE should come in.

        • JW – Great, that’s along the lines of what I’m hoping for as well.

      • MT – Would love for there to be suggestions prepared for sprint planning so it’s not just status quo (me thinking of what I should do)

      • JW – Agree, I’ll start recording to-do items for whole team on my prioritization spreadsheet (which may change form over time) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SNLSRNC73Ybv-s7o7GTFJD0YL5RpmRvpLBakbHPF5GE/edit?gid=0#gid=0

    • Further Zhiyi followup?

      • MT – If CHARMM-GUI’s system prep infrastructure is a 10, I suspect WZW’s is a 2 (where 0 is good). I suspect WZW is still doing a bit of sketchy unvalidated parmed stuff but less than charmm-gui. So I’d take their use cases with a grain of salt, and not rush to thinking that these pathways are production-ready and ready for us to make into a product.

      • MT – Can we drop testing of intel macs?

        • JW – Yes. I’ll think about how to announce this but we can discontinue testing now.

Trello

https://trello.com/b/dzvFZnv4/infrastructure

Review of tutorial results

Goal: Digest current results and think of major options for JE to consider.

  • https://github.com/mattwthompson/tutorials-with-interchange/

  • Options

    • Do nothing

    • Try running through OpenMM parsers

      • Might be an easy win to show that some conversions are possible.

      • We’d need to think a lot about how we endorse these results if positive - Workflows that go through so multiple tools may have edge cases/bugs that we can’t foresee, warn about, or fix.

      • This could let us enable users to do things we don’t explicitly validate, eg fancy AMBER glycoproteins or some other niche FFs that are only possible in other ecosystems. Downside is that it’s unvalidated and has huge surface area (eg glycam has custom 1-4s)

    • Target specific use cases (eg AMBER glycoproteins above)

      • Much better scoped, somewhat easier to validate.

      • Limited in applicability but we can enumerate the major use cases without needing to eat the world.

    • Commit to making GROMACS itp reader (but not necessarily write)

      • Est a large amount of work (> 1 week)

    • Commit to supporting OpenMM vsite imports

      • Lots of types/cases (implementing for just TIP4P is different than generally that type of vsite) - Est 1-2 weeks, mostly tests, will require addl specification of use cases.

    • Commit to supporting OpenMM metal imports

      • Neither of us have a good enough understanding of metal handling to know how to define correct here. Questions about topological representation, functional forms. If it’s all straightforward (harmonic bonds + coulomb + LJ) it could be easy.

      • We’ll need someone with biopolymer-metal simulation experience to help us understand domain.

      • Some edges here - Not straightforward to say “you can roundtrip metalloproteins to/from OpenMM, but can’t go to GROMACS” - There’s not a record of where the component came from and trying to police this will add a ton of complexity.

  • JW will raise this to JE’s attention and bring up for discussion.

Action items

Decisions