Comet ISON 2013 HFOSC Obervation Collection Liens --------- Liens that require the data provider --------- Comet ISON 2013 HFOSC Obervation Collection liens list Reviewer: Mike Kelly ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---> The data collections are independent, but the abstracts, except for Jan, are incomplete. Please update to make them stand are on their own. For example, always name the comet C/2012 S1 (ISON), expand acronyms such as HCT, IIA, OMR. ---> There is a lot of variation in quality among documents and labels, even though each data set contains similar data from the same authors. I recommend one of two actions: (1) that the datasets be combined so that there is only one description for each of the spectral and imaging reductions, with specific details for individual observing runs as needed, or (2) that the main documentation be collected into a separate documentation collection. It could help the data provider with addressing the liens, and could help the data user understand the data better if the heterogeneity between documents was reduced. ---> overview.txt - Campaign overview ----> what does Keystone mode mean? Does it mean the telescope moved at the proper motion of the comet? Please add this detail. ----> Repeated text regarding Keystone mode: paragraphs 2 and 4. ----> Please add references for the solar twin / analogs. I think there are important distinctions between "solar twin", "solar analog", and "solar type". ----> "C18 of WISE Observatory" What does C18 mean? ---> overview.txt - Confidence Level Overview - I recommend the authors who did the internal review summarize their findings related to data quality and uncertainties. ---> documentation/*.cl in Jan, Feb, Sep, and Nov collections - Generally software is not appropriate for documentation, but it can be if it is well-commented. The reduction procedure description seems typical for these types of data. Perhaps the software does not need to be archived? Would it be better to describe the code with a narrative form in the documentation? ---> documentation/*spectroscopy.pdf ----> "albedo" - Isn't reflectance the correct term? Without an absolutely calibrated spectrum, and without the scattering cross section of the dust or the thermal emission, how is the albedo obtained? Are these the polynomial fits to the continuum? It is unusual to present the fits without the data. This process needs to be clarified and the actual data presented in the figure. ----> documentation/*spectroscopy.pdf - Page 2, Table headings - "Dispersion Å\px" --> "Dispersion (Å/px)" ----> documentation/*spectroscopy.pdf - Reduction Procedure - Can "apall" be briefly described? The name may not mean anything to the reader. The way "zerocombine" is introduced in the January document is a good example. How did apall remove the sky background? ----> Some figures are missing axis labels. ----> The y-axis of the second figure in the February pdf is Counts. If the second figure is relative flux variation, should it not be unitless? ----> "ison_continuum_subtracted" description - the continuum subtracted comet spectrum results in "relative normalized flux." But a subtraction operation does not normalize the flux. Can this be further explained? ----> The spectra refer to the reduction of solar analog stars from 2014-05-31. There is not may31 directory. Are these files missing or is this date incorrect? ---> documentation/*imaging.pdf - Alignment - What interpolation method was used? Is it sub-pixel alignment? ---> Spectral data ----> May 02 normflat does not look good. Shouldn't this have a mean of 1.0 and a more flat shape? Why the constant regions at the edges? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Comet ISON XXX 2013 HFOSC Observations Collection Minor Comments/Typos Reviewer: Matthew Knight ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: due to the similarity of documentation in all datasets, many comments apply to all versions of the same file. Overview.txt --->[February version] abstract paragraph 1: two instances of "seeing" being ~7 but no units given. Pixels? Arcsec? This is repeated in the imaging PDF. --->[September version] abstract needs to state the dates of spectroscopy. Imaging PDFs ---> Add page numbers to all PDFs --->[February, November]: p.4 "CCD" paragraph: says data were obtained "January 22, 2013", not the specific month. --->[November]: p.2 "Documentation/" says this document is ".doc" not ".pdf" Spectroscopy PDFs ---> Add page numbers to all PDFs ---> [May]: p.6, Section 3.1: says solar analog star was observed 2014-05-31 and halogen lamps observed 2013-09-29. Both appear to have been observed on 2013-05-02. ---> [Sep]: p.2, "Reduction procedure" says halogen lamps were observed on 2013-09-29 and used for all data in 2013. This is inconsistent with other months' documentation. Also says solar analog was observed 2014-05-31. This appears to have been observed 2013-09-29. ---> [Nov]: p.8, Figures for Nov 13 are overlapped so only one can be seen. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Liens recommended by Anne ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---> It's not clear what the appropriate organization is for these data. In some sense the abstracts seem to be dependent on the first one, suggesting they should all be one collection. Or perhaps an independent data collection would better serve the data. Also, there are some considerations related to assigning credit to the observers that may influence on collection structure. ---> The software routines are not sufficiently self-describing to be considered as documentation. They should probably be deleted and the algorithms described in the documentation. ---> These data will need the ground-based geometry values at the very least for specifying pointing and North/East location and relationship. ---> The raw data seem to be fine and potentially very useful. There are numerous calibration issues scattered through the dataset, though. Would it be reasonable to archive only the raw data? ------------ Liens resolvable by SBN ------------ Comet ISON 2013 HFOSC Obervation Collection liens list Reviewer: Mike Kelly ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---> overview.txt - Campaign overview ---->Please provide the angular dimensions of the WISE FOSC slit. It is currently stated: "10"-long 2-inch-wide". Should this be 2-arcsec-wide? ---> hfosc_feb2013/overview.txt : Spell out b/g as background. ---> Spectral data ----> Please check and revise all Spectral_Characteristics. hfosc_nov2013/spectroscopy/nov13/calibratedspectra/13nov2013_ison_2.xml Array is 991 elements long, and the PDS label says the spectrum ranges from 3900 to 9200 Angstrom with a 5 Angstrom step. However, 3900 + 990 * 5 = 8850, which does not equal 9200. There are similar issues with the other spectra. ----> sp:Rectangular_FOV, should be the dimensions of the slit. For example, the 2.5 arcmin x 3.7 arcmin for calibratedspectra/8nov2013_ison_1800s.xml Set all sp:Field_of_view keywords in the PDS labels to the slit dimensions. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Comet ISON XXX 2013 HFOSC Observations Collection Minor Comments/Typos Reviewer: Matthew Knight ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: due to the similarity of documentation in all datasets, many comments apply to all versions of the same file. Overview.txt ---> "Observational Campaign" section, paragraph 1: I think "WISE" should be "Wise" (based on usage everywhere else) ---> "Observational Campaign" paragraph 1: the range of distances is incorrect. The last data in the archive are from Nov 13, when heliocentric distance was 0.68 AU and geocentric distance was 0.94 AU. ---> Two references should be added (Anupama 2000, Prabhu et al. 1998)? ---> "Observational Campaign" next to last paragraph, last line: "usings" should be "using" (singular) --->[November version] abstract paragraph 1 line 4: I don't think the word "relevant" needs to be here? This is repeated in the imaging PDF. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Liens recommended by Anne ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---> Emily notes the subdirectory structure is not consistent from collection to collection, which is potentially confusing for reviewers. Inventory tables are also not complete. She also noted discrepancies between table lengths in the label and the actual length of the table in the file, and anomalies in XML label naming. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Liens recommeded by Engineering node ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---> Comet ISON has 6 collections. Their directory structures for the spectroscopy/ are not consistent. Is that intentional? E.g. hfosc_feb2013/spectroscopy/calibratedpectra/ hfosc_may2013/spectroscopy/may01/calibratedpectra/ ---> In https://pdssbn.astro.umd.edu/revpro/pds4oct2017/ison_gbo/ Consider using digit instead of letter in directory names in order to preserve chronological order. ---> Standards 2B.2.2.1 recommends directory name be data_*. (e.g. hfosc_may2013 is not following this recommendation). ---> It is recommended that a collection should have products of similar type (DPH 8.0). The hfosc collections have mix data and documentation. Consider: replacing bundle.xml hfosc_feb2013/ documentation/ imaging/ spectroscopy/ hfosc_jan2013/ ... with something like bundle.xml data_imaging/ hfosc_201301/ hfosc_201302/ ... data_spectroscopy/ hfosc_201301/ hfosc_201302/ ... document/ Correspondingly, the LIDs would have to change from urn:nasa:pds:ison_gbo:hfosc_jan2013:wa220035 urn:nasa:pds:ison_gbo:hfosc_jan2013:cosmic_rays to something like urn:nasa:pds:ison_gbo:data_imaging:wa220035 urn:nasa:pds:ison_gbo:document:cosmic_rays Be aware that this may require changes in the XML files to ensure uniqueness. ---> Recommend to replace /*/overview.* with a single /readme.txt, which would be pointed to by bundle.xml. ---> For all .xml PDS has not yet determined context products and LIDs for comets nor asteroids. The naming convention for them are currently be worked. If LIDs are desirable, the LIDS in the files may end up changing. ---> For all .xml PDS has not yet determined context products and LIDs for stars. The naming convention for them are currently be worked. If LIDs are desirable, the LIDS in the files may end up changing. ---> It is desired to minimize the number of objects in the database. Can we replace all of these urn:nasa:pds:context:target:calibrator.fe-ar_lamp urn:nasa:pds:context:target:calibrator.fe-ne_lamp urn:nasa:pds:context:target:calibrator.hal_lamp urn:nasa:pds:context:target:calibrator.he-ar_lamp with something that exists, e.g. one of urn:nasa:pds:context:target:calibrator.calibration urn:nasa:pds:context:target:calibrator.internal_source urn:nasa:pds:context:target:calibrator.test_image If not, context products will have to be created for the desired LID. ---> LIDs and context products need to be created. urn:nasa:pds:context:facility:observatory.iao urn:nasa:pds:context:facility:observatory.vainu urn:nasa:pds:context:facility:observatory.wise urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument:fosc urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument:hfosc urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument:omr_spec urn:nasa:pds:context:telescope:hct urn:nasa:pds:context:telescope:vbt urn:nasa:pds:context:telescope:wise1m ---> In the XML Prolog and Root Tag (the top of a label), must use https instead of http for URLs (not namespaces) of NASA sites due to IT security, e.g. change DHP recommends explicitly declaring xmlns:pds="http://pds.nasa.gov/pds4/pds/v1" ---> It is a good practice to include schemas and context collection in a bundle. Currently most bundles reviewed do not have them. ---> hfosc_feb2013/inventory.csv These LIDVIDs were listed here but weren't found in the data urn:nasa:pds:ison_gbo:hfosc_feb2013:albedo::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:ison_gbo:hfosc_feb2013:ison_continuum::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:ison_gbo:hfosc_feb2013:ison_continuum_subtracted::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:ison_gbo:hfosc_feb2013:ison_spectrum::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:ison_gbo:hfosc_feb2013:solar_analog::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:ison_gbo:hfosc_feb2013:solar_continuum::1.0 But hfosc_feb2013/spectroscopy/derivedspectra/*xml The LIDs of the 6 files here are not in inventory.csv. The LIDs are: urn:nasa:pds:ison_gbo:hfosc_feb2013c:albedo::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:ison_gbo:hfosc_feb2013c:ison_continuum::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:ison_gbo:hfosc_feb2013c:ison_continuum_subtracted::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:ison_gbo:hfosc_feb2013c:ison_spectrum::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:ison_gbo:hfosc_feb2013c:solar_analog::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:ison_gbo:hfosc_feb2013c:solar_continuum::1.0 ---> similar to 13 hfosc_feb2013/spectroscopy/calibratedpectra/*xml hfosc_oct2013/spectroscopy/oct01/calibratespectra/*xml - The LIDs of the 5 and 4 files here are not in inventory.csv, plus inventory.csv has no apparent typos that would match. ---> hfosc_sept2013/spectroscopy/derivedspectra/solar_analog.xml - This file has 2522 but the .tab file actually has 3500 lines. ---> hfosc_nov2013/spectroscopy/nov11/derivedspectra/11nov2013_ison_tab.xml hfosc_nov2013/spectroscopy/nov12/derivedspectra/12nov2013_ison_tab.xml hfosc_nov2013/spectroscopy/nov13/derivedspectra/13nov2013_ison_1tab.xml hfosc_nov2013/spectroscopy/nov13/derivedspectra/13nov2013_ison_2tab.xml - These file names should not have the final _tab or _1tab or _2tab to match the names of the .tab files. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Certification Status: Not certified