gbo-kpno
========

Science Liens
-------------

o Field 7 in the data tables is labelled "flux" but units indicate it is
  flux density.  This also needs to be updated in the collection description.
o Indicate that the aperture over which flux density is measured is 
  +/-3.7 arcsec orthogonal to offset direction, and +/-0.43 arcsec in the
  offset (sunward) direction.
o Incorporate Mike A'Hearn's comments into collection description file and
  labels as appropriate. (In particular, item 2.)   
o Re-work plot files to remove cut-off and missing numbers.  Please also 
  provide a legend (possibly as a separate file), and orient all plot 
  pages the same way.
o If possible, provide specific time stamps as appropriate for each offset.
  (See Mike A'Hearn's response.)  
o Please provide additional information on the plot files.  M. DiSanti 
  notes:    
    After "60x," a description of spectra shown in pox(0-3).pdf is 
    needed. For example, "Two traces are shown in each panel: the one in 
    orange is a spectral extract centered on the nucleus (i.e., a 
    nucleus-centered extract), the one in green is arbitrarily offset 
    vertically and in wavelength (by 1 Å), and represents the spectrum 
    extracted 10 arc-second off the nucleus." In addition, the spatial 
    extent of each spectral extract should be specified here, even if 
    it’s the full slit length (±3.7arc-sec centered on each position in 
    the coma).
o pox2.pdf: On p. 1, “x” is missing from scaling in the 3 panels. On p. 
  2, "12x" shows as "2x", and for "60x", the "6" is cut off on the left.
  Note that this is a result of splitting al ong file into separate pages.
  The meanings are consistent throughout despite clipping.
o Include Mike A'Hearn's notes on labelling features in the plot labels:
    As best I can recall, looking again at the spectra, is that the 
    purple identifications are firm but the blue ones were an attempt to 
    see if other species were the right species - some match and some 
    don’t match observed peaks but none of these identifications is 
    really firm.  The ones labelled ?A and ?B in pox0 are now identified 
    as prompt emission by OH (the AJ paper).   
o In collection_description under "Processing," some information should 
  be included on wavelength calibration. Although flat-fielding, 
  solar/16 Cyg B spectra for removal of dust continuum, and scattered 
  light removal are mentioned, there is nothing on lambda-cal (arc-
  lamps, features in sky, solar analog spectra, etc?).
  
  Mike A'Hearn notes:
   Over most of the spectral range, the wavelength was calibrated using 
   exposures on a thorium-argon lamp, with careful matching in the 
   overlap between orders of the echelon.  At the shortest wavelengths 
   there are not enough lines from the thorium- argon lamp so the 
   wavelength was calibrated using readily identified cometary emission 
   lines of OH.
o In collection description and labels, indicate that data were obtained
  on the date of closest approach to Earth, so there is no significant
  Doppler shift in the cometary OH lines used to calibrate part of the
  spectrum.  
o In collection.xml:  The last reference (A’Hearn, Krishna Swamy, et al)
  should be updated since it has now been published.  Astron.J. 150, 5. 
  DOI:10.1088/0004-6256/150/1/5.
o In collection_description.txt:  several English issues
   a.  Under Parameters:  The data are presented as ascii tables (plural 
       verb and object), also flux —> flux density
   b.  Under Ancillary:  flux —> flux density
   c.  Under Spectra:  The original spectra are available at KPNO.




PDS4 Standards Liens
--------------------

o Context objects have not been vetted.

bundle.xml
  o Citation description is not sufficient.
  o This label is poorly formatted and difficult to read.
  o The document collection ID is inappropriate (too specific).


gbo-kpno:hyakutake_spectra
--------------------------

collection.xml
  o The inventory table includes the collection label.
  o The product LIDs listed contain two different collection ID segments
    (some have '-', some '_').
  o There are four external references listed but no indication is given
    for why these references are included.

collection.csv
  o Table lines do not consistently end with CR/LF
  o Remake this table for the actual collection content

collection_description.xml
  o The Citation description is not sufficient (it must stand alone, it
    only makes sense in a directory context as written).

data labels (Example: offset_0_arcsec.xml and table)
  ? Does it make sense to have Primary Result Summary at this level?
  o Collection ID is not consistent (sometimes '-', sometimes '_') from 
    label to label.
  o Primary Result Summary description does not read like propoer English.
  o Context objects are not vetted.
  o Record length is wrong
  o Data table is not fixed-length
  o Data table incorrectly includes delimiters between columns.
  o Table lines do not consistently end with CR/LF
  o Field descriptions are circular.
  o Flux unit is incorrectly specified (misspelled).
  
data/offset_10_arcsec.tab
  o Line 21518 needs to be split:  
      4439.8745 , -1.2303975e-15
      4439.9517 , -5.3005169e-154440.0557 , -8.3680622e-15
      4440.1338 , -6.4354977e-15
  o Doing so requires incrementing <records>22455</records> in the .xml

document/4mechspec.xml
  o This document should be in the document collection for the associated 
    bundle, not here.
  o The document title is not sufficiently specific.
  o "The <edition_name> value of "First" is inappropriate.

document/pox*.xml
  ? Perhaps these shouldn't be called/labelled "document".  Are they truly
    documents, are they a browsing aid, or are they ancillary data?
  ? Should these four documents be combined into a single PDF?
  ? I'm not sure it's appropriate to cite a poster in an archival document
    as an external reference.  No user will ever be able to resolve this
    reference to get additional information, which is the purpose of the
    Reference_List class.  History can be documented elsewhere.
  o Because this is being described as part of a "20 ft long poster", the
    actual document print dimensions should be stated in the description.
  o "First" is not an appropriate <edition_name>.


gbo-kpno:document
-----------------

o These descriptions seem pointless.  Even the ones that do contain 
  actual relevant information are not more informative that the 
  corresponding context object would be.  Recommend they are deleted.

collection.xml
  o Context object has not been vetted.

echspec_description.xml
  o The actual text file is not appropriate to the title - it refers to
    itself as a manual (it is not), and references "this data", which
    is contextually inappropriate.