Hi Pycro-Manager maintainers,
URML (urml.dev) is a small, Apache-2.0 language for robot intent: a typed instruction validated against a declared capability manifest and a safety envelope, then dispatched. A microscope is an instrument with a well-defined set of capabilities and limits, which is the kind of thing a capability manifest describes, so Pycro-Manager seemed worth asking about. This is a request for comment.
Nothing here asks the project to adopt, host, or maintain anything.
The mapping: an acquisition is a declared intent (image this region, at these channels, within these stage and exposure limits). URML could express that as a typed instruction, validate it against the scope's declared capabilities and limits, then dispatch it through Pycro-Manager. Pycro-Manager stays the microscope interface; URML adds the typed pre-dispatch check and an optional natural-language path. The scope's available channels, stage travel, and objectives form the capability set an instruction would be checked against.
Two real questions: (1) is a typed, validated instruction layer (an acquisition checked against the scope's declared capabilities before dispatch) useful above Pycro-Manager? (2) Does a microscope's configuration map onto a capability manifest?
Full write-up: https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/docs/rfcs/0593-pycro-manager-outreach.md
Thanks for Pycro-Manager; reproducible scripted acquisition is exactly the setting where stating an instruction's limits up front and checking them might be worth something.
Ido Yahalomi (URML, greenvh@gmail.com)
AI-assisted prose, maintainer-reviewed before posting (see https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/VIBE.md). Human-only correspondence available on request.
Hi Pycro-Manager maintainers,
URML (urml.dev) is a small, Apache-2.0 language for robot intent: a typed instruction validated against a declared capability manifest and a safety envelope, then dispatched. A microscope is an instrument with a well-defined set of capabilities and limits, which is the kind of thing a capability manifest describes, so Pycro-Manager seemed worth asking about. This is a request for comment.
Nothing here asks the project to adopt, host, or maintain anything.
The mapping: an acquisition is a declared intent (image this region, at these channels, within these stage and exposure limits). URML could express that as a typed instruction, validate it against the scope's declared capabilities and limits, then dispatch it through Pycro-Manager. Pycro-Manager stays the microscope interface; URML adds the typed pre-dispatch check and an optional natural-language path. The scope's available channels, stage travel, and objectives form the capability set an instruction would be checked against.
Two real questions: (1) is a typed, validated instruction layer (an acquisition checked against the scope's declared capabilities before dispatch) useful above Pycro-Manager? (2) Does a microscope's configuration map onto a capability manifest?
Full write-up: https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/docs/rfcs/0593-pycro-manager-outreach.md
Thanks for Pycro-Manager; reproducible scripted acquisition is exactly the setting where stating an instruction's limits up front and checking them might be worth something.
Ido Yahalomi (URML, greenvh@gmail.com)
AI-assisted prose, maintainer-reviewed before posting (see https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/VIBE.md). Human-only correspondence available on request.