@eacharles suggested separating the dmsky data from the dmsky API. I think this is generally a good idea, and could eventually interface with independent efforts to build a database interface to local group galaxy properties. I don't know if we want this for the upcoming public beta, but worth considering.
@eacharles suggested separating the dmsky data from the dmsky API. I think this is generally a good idea, and could eventually interface with independent efforts to build a database interface to local group galaxy properties. I don't know if we want this for the upcoming public beta, but worth considering.