TMPL1PHOT ========= o The AO resolution question noted for DISA_0001 has a critical bearing on this data set. These data cannot be accepted until that answer is known and the impact on this data set can be determined. If the answer is simple and clear, there is no need for additional review on this point. o The documentation contains a recipe for further processing. Sykes questions the validity of the IRAS re-calibration procedure proposed. The potentially controversial nature of the described procedure needs to be clearly stated, at the least. Preferably, the controversy should be solved and the ultimate solution documented. o In the explanatory document: - Amend the Figure 2 caption to indicate more clearly that the data plotted have been further processed from the data obtained from Russ Walker. - Add explicit reference to the "IRAS Explanatory Supplement". (Note that this is available as HTML on line from www.ipac.caltech.edu. - Add horizontal bars in Figure 2 showing filter FWHM. - Page 2: change reference to "fields of view of bandpasses" to "fields of view of detectors". - Expand on the discussion of the technique used to subtract background from the various images. Mark notes there might be additional survey data of the same area (in ISSA) without the comet in it that might be useful for comparison. o If this is supposed to be a publishable volume, voldesc.cat is required but missing. o aareadme.txt - SPACECRAFT_NAME is an obsolete keyword. Use INTRUMENT_HOST_NAME. o insthost.cat, instrmnt.cat, mission.cat: See "disa_0001" lien list. o 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. o docinfo.txt - line 22: Is JPEG a rendering or a format? You wouldn't call it a FITS- rendered image, would you? o document/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. o document/exp_supp_aphot.*: - Who owns the copyright on this text? It looks like it was prepared for publication. Do we have republication permission? o 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. o data/ao/*.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? o data/survey/*.lbl - As for data/ao, plus the following. - 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. o data/survey/*.tab - As for data/ao o The required PDS index file (and label) is missing. o 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". o photindx.tab - TARGET_CENTER_DISTANCE ranges from 0.85 to 1.73 AU. Is this reasonable?