ear-c-multi-6-cara-pds4-v1.0 ============================ o LINEAR and NEAT are currently in the same folder because they come from the same paper. Need to determine if this is acceptable. Also these names are unnacceptable and need to be changed. o Need to make it clearer that if greater detail is needed then the user should look at the original paper. This dataset seems to be meant more as a reference for unidentified emission lines. o Need to determine if this is the best folder structure. It was suggested that separating further by table format may be useful. gbo-mixed ========= o This presentation needs to be completely reorganized and re-LIDded in a manner consistent with the SBN archives. o bundle.xml - The Citation description is almost completely inappropriate; though part of this is because the data were formatted as a bundle when they should have been presented as a collection. gbo-mixed:unidentified_emissions -------------------------------- o The collection/bundle ID implies these are unidentified emission lines, but that is not actually stated anywhere I can see in the description fields of the labels. Neither is there any indication of data format (spectral tables vs. plots, for example). o The directory structure seems arbitrary and weird. Similarly for naming conventions. Why are "linear" and "neat" in the same directory, and why not use the distinct IDs for those objects rather than two of the most-repeated object names in the small bodies universe? o collection.xml ? Do we need some way to identify ground-based data in, say, Primary Result Summary? In an SBN dictionary class? ? Do we need some way to identify collections based on target type(s) in Primary Result Summary? In an SBN dictionary class? o Inventory table includes the collection label. o collection_description.txt - Need to make the describe the difference in the formats much more clearly in the collection_description.txt. In particular it was not clear to reviewers that the data and observation tables are separated because the content cannot be paired with each other. - This file contains self-referential time-dependent information that is inappropriate in a file submitted for archiving. o data labels/tables (Example: giacobinzinner) - Format 1 = two tables (one for observations, one for data, with corresponding xml files) that cannot be paired with one another. o Universal Time is UT Date. Even if this cannot be specified to better than one day, approximate geometric parameters should still be listed (Delta, R, Delta-dot, R-dot). o Need to determine for whether the given wavelengths are the observed wavelength or the rest wavelength. o There are multiple columns (Relative Intensity, Brightness, Flux in particular) that often have null values due to the use of one being favored in the original paper. This needs to be explained better and we need to consider whether it would be preferable to keep null columns to ensure consistency or to remove null columns to avoid clutter. o Need to rework the descriptions and units of the columns to be clearer. Also need to more diligently note where the differences in definitions between papers are. - Format 2 = one table (e.g., as with giacobinizinner.tab, 12 columns). o Again, field 4 is UT Date, not Universal Time as stated in the .xml file. o For 21P, Field 9 (Brightness) is "9.2" in the table, but claims "null value" in the .xml description. Is this the integrated magnitude? If not then units need to be given, as does the aperture over which brightness is measured. o Geometric parameters other than R (i.e., Delta, Delta-dot, R-dot) should not contain null values. If possible effort should be made to find the values, even if only to a single UT date. This may be difficult when the comet is moving quickly near perihelion. - The data table uses column delimiters inappropriately. Remove them. - Context objects were not requested and have not been vetted. In particular, you absolutely may NOT use "SAO" to refer to the "Special Astrophysical Observatory" at the Russian Academy of Sciences. - External References are cited with no indication as to why. - The record length is wildly incorrect. - The number of records is off by a factor of five. - The data file contains a blank line. - It is not appropriate to give missing constant values in the Table field. - Neither is it appropriate to define a field as "a null value". - No special constants are defined for any of these fields even though many fields clearly use them. - The "Brightness" field in the example label has an invalid (%3.1d). - The stated unit for the "Signal-to-Noise" field is inappropriate. SNR is a unitless value by definition. - A field name of "Equivalent Width" is not consistent with a description of "a measure of line width". And "Ångstrom" is misspelled.