Rosetta Review Monday, 15 February 2016 Attending in person: Jianyan Li Ottaviano Reusch Brian Butler Tilden Barnes Anne Raugh (recorder) Cesare Grava Emily Law Mike DiSanti Mike A'hearn Ludmilla Kolokolova By Telecon Tony Farnham Lori Feaga Dennis Bodewits Kevin Walsh OSIRIS Pre-Landing Data ======================= Items listed in JianYang's Presentation should be taken as liens except as noted or modified below. o Clarification: The data set descriptions are too generic. There should be at least enough detail to allow a user to distinguish between the contents of the various data sets. o Slide 2 bullet 3: The file target name is only obvious if you assume a user is familiar with PDS3 jargon and style. o Compare with Previous Versions slide: The first bullet is a known problem that was corrected in the new version. o Data File slide: note that even in the same instrument and calibration level, object structure was not consistent through a data set. o The Image Orientation issue is significant and needs more investigation. o Document typos will be submitted separately when that review is complete. o Emily Law has submitted a spreadsheet of minor label compliance issues. Mike notes that the version of the data available to the team have correct and consistent orientations between the WAC and NAC, unlike the data submitted for review. Also, the geometry keywords seem to be wrong by significant amounts. It looks like updates made to the team pipeline have not been made to the archive pipeline. Tony F. confirms that SPICE calculations return slightly different values than in the label. Rosetta are using an older version of the toolkit. Certification: Not certified. Delta-review by external reviewers required. NAVCAM Data =========== These data sets seem to have systemic and major fundamental problems, as listed in Deenis Bodewits presentation. The data as presented could not be reviewed. Additional notes: o Note that on the Comments slide, bullet 5 should be two bullets, the second starting at "RA & DEC". o It seems that the same data object is presented in both FITS and (PDS) IMG format, each with its own label, and even though the data appear to be identicial, the label content is not. Duplication of data objects with different labels is misleading and a fundamental violation of archiving maintenance principles. o FITS users are not happy that the FITS header keywords are few and ill-defined. If it is possible to correct this, please consider doing so. o It looks like subspacecraft lat/long is incorrect in labels checked. o The gain settings "high" and "low" are never quantified. Certification: Not Reviewed. Not certifiable. ROLIS Data ========== Items in Jianyang's presentation should be taken as liens except as noted or modified below. o Catalog Files slide: Note that, as in previous case, there needs to be enough in this description for users to be able to distinguish between similar datasets. o Browse facility was much appreciated. Can the occasional blue-tone image be explained? o Data slide: It is particulary important to mention that the files are FITS files in the PDS labels and documentation, since the files do not have any of the traditional FITS file extensions. o Data slide: Display direction must be provided in the PDS labels. o There is apparently some essential information in the FITS headers that is not in the PDS label and must be. (Someone will need to specify which FITS keywords are essential.) o It may be that geometry values are not consistently supplied or not supplied (whichever makes sense) within or between data sets. This should be checked and, if necessary, corrected. This data set also has RIDs on file. Additional comments re: RIDs: o #118: Seems like time discrepancies of up to a minute are a major problem, not a minor one. Certification: Certified, archive pending lien resolution. CIVA Data ========= Items in Ottavanio's presentation should be taken as liens except as noted or modified below. o Calibrations slide: The relationship to what was done to produce level 3 data, vs. 3a, in particular, needs to be clarified. o Minor Notes slide: Identical spaceccraft clock for start and stop seems unlikely. This needs investigation and explanation. Similarly, temperature values like "999.9K". o The browse facility also has some images which are oddly blue-toned. This should be investigated and explained as appropriate. o These files need display direction settings. o There are clarifications in comment fields in labels that ought to exist in documentation. o Geometry keywords are also inconsistently supplied here as in the previous data set. As before, it needs to be investigated and either explained or corrected. o There should be an explanation in the level 3 PHC data set description as to why none of the level 2 CIVA-M data were calibrated. This data set also has RIDs on file. Certification: Certified, archive pending lien resolution. ALICE Data ========== Items in Cesare's presentation should be taken as liens except as noted or modified below. Certification: Certified, archive pending lien resolution. VIRTIS Data =========== Mike DiSanti's presentation includes "Notes" which should be taken as liens unless otherwise noted or modiied below. o The "Possible Issue" listed at the bottom left of the slide addressing singla-to-noise number needs investigation. Looks like SNR is an order of magnitude larger than indicated in the data. o Similarly for the sigma_radiance seen in the plot vs. the statistics in the data. o In the plot of geometry/telemetry, the change in longitude over ~14 minutes sees way more than would be expected from the rotation period (~12 hours) and the orbit distance (100km). This needs to be investigated and explained. Was the instrument scanning? o The AAREADME claims that 9 orders are present in the spectral cubes, but everything else seems to indicate there are only 8. o MPT009_stp25_H shows negative values for altitude. o Using zero as a flag value for sigma is misleading. It should be replaced with something that is clearly not a plausible value. o The PDS manifest indices are missing. Certification: Not certified. MIRO Data ========= Bryan Butler's presentation contains notes that should be taken as lien except as noted or amended below, unless superseded by a RID. o The presence of a geometry directory for calibrated escort data but no other data is not explained; it probably should be. o The calibration does not appear to align with that in published papers; but does align with the CONFIDENCE_LEVEL_NOTE. o The promised documentation has not, for the most part, materialized since V4.5 of the existing document (three years ago). o The data associated with a specific 2015 publication (listed) appears to have been removed from the continuum data set without explanation. Certification: Certified, delta review required.