disa_0002
=========
=========


[/root]
=======
o If this is supposed to be a publishable volume, voldesc.cat is required
  but missing.

aareadme.txt
 - SPACECRAFT_NAME is an obsolete keyword.  Use INTRUMENT_HOST_NAME.


catalog
=======
insthost.cat
instrmnt.cat
mission.cat
 - See "disa_0001"


photds.cat
  - DATA_SET_TERSE_DESC is not a sentence and should not end in a period;
    "Coma" should not be capitalized.
  - DATA_SET_NAME doesn't quite follow requirements and is awkward.
  - line 32: Somewhere in this mess someone needs to explain why "Additional
    Observations" is constantly being capitalized.  If there is a specific
    catalog/observation set called "IRAS - Additional Observations" then
    say so and reference it thereafter as "IAO".  Presumably, this would
    be distinct from the IRAS Sky Survey Scans (ISSA), which it a catalog
    in its own right.
  - line 36,45, etc: PDS REFERENCE_KEY_ID values may NOT be used to
    substitute for actual citations.
  - line 57ff: PDS keywords should be capitalized when referenced in text. 
    However, this reference of DATA_SET_ID and the subsequent value is 
    grannatically wrong, and the use of past tense is inappropriate.
  - line 66: Does one "generate" photometry, or does one "perform", "derive",
    or "calculate" it?
  - line 66ff: Run-on sentence, and at least one of the commas is either 
    misplaced or inappropriate.
  - line 65: It is only necessary to say something like "the process used by
    Lisse was..." once.  Repeating his surname every other sentence sounds
    pejorative.
  - line 82: Numbers less than or equal to ten should be spelled out.
  - line 82ff: This paragraph belongs in the "Parameters" section, not here.
  - line 89ff: This paragraph belongs in a "Calibration" section or in the
    CONFIDENCE_LEVEL_NOTE text. 
  - line 90: Use of the indirect personal pronoun at this point is not 
    appropriate - it is not the style of the rest of the description.
  - line 101: This information belongs in the "Data Set Overview, not under
    "Parameters".
  - line 101: Does the data set contain data "from IRAS ... Scans" or 
    *OF* IRAS Scans.  Also, this title is different from other titles
    referenced for what appears to be the same source data set.  All titles
    used for the same publication should be the same.  Better yet, state the
    title once in its entirely, establish an acronym, and then use that 
    acronym everywhere else in the text.
  - line 133: The acronym "SOP" is never defined.
  - line 133: You cannot define a term as meaning itself ("Mean SOP is the 
    mean SOP") - define "mean" and define "SOP".
  - line 141: Use of indirect pronoun is not consistent with predominant
    style.
  - line 148: Are the tables really delimited?  This is a violation of SBN
    standards.
  - line 149: Do you mean "relate", or do you mean "correspond"?  If you 
    mean "relate", state the relationship.
  - line 147: This information belongs under "Parameters".
  - line 154ff: Sections which are not applicable should be omitted.
  - line 169: I suspect this statement is not true.
  - line 171: The pointless comment should be removed.
  - line 179ff: Only the last sentence belongs in the CONFIDENCE_LEVEL_NOTE.
    The rest belongs in the DATA_SET_DESC, possibly under a separate heading
    like "History", possibly under "Background".
  - line 192: It's an external peer review, and it is held, not performed.


document
========
docinfo.txt
  - line 22: Is JPEG a rendering or a format?  You wouldn't call it a FITS-
    rendered image, would you?
  
exp_supp_aphot.lbl
  - DATA_SET_ID - this is not the same ID as in the DATA_SET catalog file.
  - line 20ff: DOCUMENT_NAME should not start with the format.

exp_supp_aphot.*
  - Who owns the copyright on this text?  It looks like it was prepared for
    publication.  Do we have republication permission?


data/ao
=======
*.lbl
  - MEAN_OBSERVATION_TIME is not a valid keyword.  OBSERVATION_TIME is a
    keyword.  If this is not the concept needed, what is?
  - line 2: LABEL_REVISION_NOTE is not used in labels.  Yeah. I know...
  - Are START_TIME and STOP_TIME really known to 0.001 second?
  - line 25: Ungrammatical sentence.  Is there a word missing, or is "is"
    incorrect?
  - line 28: Never refer to directory structures inside data sets - there
    is absolutely no mechanism for either documenting ot preserving those
    structures.  In fact, reference should be by DATA_SET_ID/PRODUCT_ID.
  - line 44: This is not a sentence.
  - line 48ff: "Aperture" is misspelled repeatedly.
  - line 56: "PIXEL" does not seem like a reasonable unit, given the datum
    description.  This should either be converted to arcseconds in the 
    file, or a scaling factor supplied for the user to perform the 
    conversion.
  - line 62ff: This is not a sentence.
  - line 75: This is not a sentence.
  - line 86-7: This is not a sentence.


*.tab
  - Why does every file begin with a record full of zeroes?  Is this a 
    true zero point?
  - Are there really six significant digits in the real values?
  

data/survey
===========
--- As for data/ao, plus:

*.lbl
 - EXPOSURE_COUNT is almost certainly being used incorrectly. At the very
   least it should be accompanied by EXPOSURE_TYPE.  What was intended?
 - OBSERVATION_INCLINATION is not a valid keyword.


index
=====
o The required PDS index file (and label) is missing.

photindx.lbl
 - Why is START_TIME and STOP_TIME given to greater precision here than in 
   the DATA_SET catalog file?
 - Are START_TIME and STOP_TIME really known to 0.001 second?
 - line 35, and other DESCRIPTIONs: This is not a sentence.
 - lines 44, 55: Time fields in ISO format should have a DATA_TYPE of "TIME",
   not "CHARACTER".

photindx.tab
 - TARGET_CENTER_DISTANCE ranges from 0.85 to 1.73 AU.  Is this reasonable?