disa_0002
=========
=========
> = comments by SAM
> N.B. DISA_0002 is the ID used for the review. The VOLUME_ID
for the archive is DISA_0004. For other DI volume ids, see
http://pdssbn.astro.umd.edu/internal/doc/DI_stuff/di_volume_ids.html
[/root]
=======
o If this is supposed to be a publishable volume, voldesc.cat is required
but missing.
> Added
aareadme.txt
- SPACECRAFT_NAME is an obsolete keyword. Use INTRUMENT_HOST_NAME.
> Corrected
catalog
=======
insthost.cat
instrmnt.cat
mission.cat
- See "disa_0001"
> Copied corrected catalog files from "disa_irasim" here.
photds.cat
- DATA_SET_TERSE_DESC is not a sentence and should not end in a period;
"Coma" should not be capitalized.
> Corrected
- DATA_SET_NAME doesn't quite follow requirements and is awkward.
> Corrected
- 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.
> Changed
- line 36,45, etc: PDS REFERENCE_KEY_ID values may NOT be used to
substitute for actual citations.
> Corrected
- 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.
> Corrected
- line 66: Does one "generate" photometry, or does one "perform", "derive",
or "calculate" it?
> Semantics. Let's try "derive".
- line 66ff: Run-on sentence, and at least one of the commas is either
misplaced or inappropriate.
> Corrected
- 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.
> Changed
- line 82: Numbers less than or equal to ten should be spelled out.
> Changed
- line 82ff: This paragraph belongs in the "Parameters" section, not here.
> Moved to "Parameters"
- line 89ff: This paragraph belongs in a "Calibration" section or in the
CONFIDENCE_LEVEL_NOTE text.
> Moved to CONFIDENCE_LEVEL_NOTE
- 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.
> Corrected
- line 101: This information belongs in the "Data Set Overview, not under
"Parameters".
> Moved to "Data Set Overview"
- 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.
> The offending paragraph was deleted.
- line 133: The acronym "SOP" is never defined.
> Actually, it is defined in old line 119.
- line 133: You cannot define a term as meaning itself ("Mean SOP is the
mean SOP") - define "mean" and define "SOP".
> Corrected
- line 141: Use of indirect pronoun is not consistent with predominant
style.
> Sentence deleted; not needed
- line 148: Are the tables really delimited? This is a violation of SBN
standards.
> Commas removed; waiting anixously for the "SBN Standards Manual"
to be published. ;)
- line 149: Do you mean "relate", or do you mean "correspond"? If you
mean "relate", state the relationship.
> Corrected
- line 147: This information belongs under "Parameters".
> Moved
- line 154ff: Sections which are not applicable should be omitted.
> Deleted "Ancillary Data" and "Coordinate System"
- line 169: I suspect this statement is not true.
> Changed
- line 171: The pointless comment should be removed.
> Deleted
- 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".
> Moved to "Background"
- line 192: It's an external peer review, and it is held, not performed.
> Corrected
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?
> See comment for disa_irasim
- line 2: LABEL_REVISION_NOTE is not used in labels. Yeah. I know...
> Deleted
- Are START_TIME and STOP_TIME really known to 0.001 second?
> Actually, to 0.01 second; changed
- line 25: Ungrammatical sentence. Is there a word missing, or is "is"
incorrect?
> Corrected
- 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.
> Changed
- line 44: This is not a sentence.
> Removed period
- line 48ff: "Aperture" is misspelled repeatedly.
> Corrected
- 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.
> Modified the description for APERTURE_PIXEL_RADIUS and added a column
for APERTURE_ARCSECOND_RADIUS
- line 62ff: This is not a sentence.
- line 75: This is not a sentence.
- line 86-7: This is not a sentence.
> Removed period
*.tab
- Why does every file begin with a record full of zeroes? Is this a
true zero point?
> The first record is the starting/zero point for the photometry
and must be included. A sentence about this topic was added
to "Data" in the photds.cat
- Are there really six significant digits in the real values?
> Walker used three significant digits when reporting some
photometry values in his explanatory supplements. But, I do
not want to mess with the values provided by Lisse.
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?
> EXPOSURE_COUNT was removed from the labels.
- OBSERVATION_INCLINATION is not a valid keyword.
> The OBSERVATION_INCLINATION keyword was defined and submitted
to CN shortly after the 2003 Comet Review but is not yet in
the DD. Sigh.
index
=====
o The required PDS index file (and label) is missing.
> Not is the version I have
photindx.lbl
- Why is START_TIME and STOP_TIME given to greater precision here than in
the DATA_SET catalog file?
> Corrected
- Are START_TIME and STOP_TIME really known to 0.001 second?
> Actually, to 0.01 seconds; changed
- line 35, and other DESCRIPTIONs: This is not a sentence.
> Removed period
- lines 44, 55: Time fields in ISO format should have a DATA_TYPE of "TIME",
not "CHARACTER".
> Corrected
photindx.tab
- TARGET_CENTER_DISTANCE ranges from 0.85 to 1.73 AU. Is this reasonable?
> Yes
> Added VOLUME_ID, PRODUCT_ID, PRODUCT_CREATION_TIME, and DATA_SET_ID.