EPOXI MRI-VIS 103/Hartley 2 Encounter Photometry Collection Liens --------- Liens that require the data provider --------- EPOXI MRI-VIS 103/Hartley 2 Encounter Photometry Collection Minor Comments/Typos Reviewer: Matthew Knight Overview.txt ---> Does not explain differences with respect to version 1 (given on p. 10 of PDF) epoxi_photometry_V4.pdf ---> p.5: Lines 5-6 of section 3.5 say "We do not recommend using apertures with a radius smaller than 3 pixels for photometry" but Fig 2 plots photometry in a 2 pixel radius. ---> p.7, last paragraph: the first line says "shot" noise, but it is referred to as "photon counting noise" elsewhere in the paragraph. Assuming these are interchangeable, it's probably better to be consistent,especially since "PC" seems to be used for this noise term. ---> p.8, paragraph starting "1.", line 3: N_PC is not defined. ---> p.8, line after second equation: Is the radiometic calibration constant (R) given in another dataset? Should this be referenced? --------------------------------------------------------------- EPOXI MRI-VIS 103/Hartley 2 Encounter Photometry Collection lienslist Reviewer: Mike Kelly --------------------------------------------------------------- overview.txt ---> Missing discussion of the prior version: Williams, J.L., Li, J.-Y., Bodewits, D., and McLaughlin, S.A., EPOXI 103P/HARTLEY2 ENCOUNTER - MRI PHOTOMETRY V1.0, DIF-C-MRI-5-EPOXI-HARTLEY2-PHOTOM-V1.0, NASA Planetary Data System, 2012. ---> (Here and in the main documentation) All apertures > 20 pixel radius are invalid, and the photometry tables seem to agree. They should just be deleted, no? It is a strange way to save data (i.e., not space efficient), but it is fine. Users might find it confusing, though. I recommend the reasoning behind the data structure be added to overview.txt (and the main documentation). Invalid measurements (i.e. aperture photometry with r < 3 pixels or r > 20 pixels, and azimuthal profile integrals with r<10 pixels or r larger than the size of the detector) are labeled -99. --->"Confidence Level Overview": This discussion is probably best in the photometry document, right? The overview should be more brief. Also quote absolute uncertainties, but largely point the user to the documentation for details. Photometry document ---> Section 1. Add a statement about and reference to Williams et al. data here (or Section 6?) ---> Section 3.6. would it be more fair to replace "we" with Williams et al. in the following sentence? In order to minimize the contamination from background stars, we developed the so-called 'azimuthally-averaged photometry' procedure, which measures ... ---> "'azimuthally-averaged photometry' procedure, which measures the integrated flux through the median radial profile of the comet where stars are filtered out using an outlier-resistant determination of the mean." - median --> mean? The description that follows does not refer tothe median. ---> Aside from celestial sources, the background is dominated by bias residuals and associated noise (Klaasen et al. 2013). The bias residuals are correlated noise with levels somewhere around 1 to 3 DN. The background discussion quotes flux densities, but if the bias is the main source, then it should be described in DN first. The conversion from DN to spectral irradiance depends on the exposure time and filter, so it will vary from frame to frame. I recommend that this background source be described in units of DN, and converted to W/m2 μm as an example. Page 7 the discussion of background should be based on DN first, then converted to physical units as an example. Furthermore, this would allow one to estimate the background for the C2, OH, GC, and UC images. ---> Section 3.7: Missing bias correlated noise (striping). It is described in Klaasen et al. 2013. ---> Section 4. Known constrains. This text is largely repeated from 3.6. It seems that only one is needed and the other should refer to it. Recommend discuss in 4 and refer from 3.6. ---> Section 5. Also explain reasoning for aperture columns here (i.e., why so many -99s?). ----> Section 5. Recommend "see table labels for column details." ----> Description of Flux and Surface Brightness: Recommend "A value of -99 indicates photometry [was not] computed for the given aperture." The aperture limits appear to be a choice by the data providers, rather than a physical limitation of the data or procedure. ---> There is a spike in the flux vs. time plot for one of the apertures in the data set. It looks like it might be right before the gap for the CN anomaly. This should be investigated and explained. ------------ Liens resolvable by SBN ------------ EPOXI MRI-VIS 103/Hartley 2 Encounter Photometry Collection Minor Comments/Typos Reviewer: Matthew Knight Overview.txt ---> Should there be names/references for the dataset(s) from which these data are derived (images, calibration, etc.)? ---> Lines 95, 98: "\226" instead of "-" ---> same lines: is mu an acceptable ASCII character? ---> Line 120: "brightness if" -> "brightness is" ---> Lines 128, 129: more Word to ASCII problems ---> Does not mention "Anomalous behavior of MRI document" epoxi_photometry_V4.pdf ---> p.7, line 3: "brightness if" -> "brightness is" ---> p.7, line 4: I believe the units for CN images should be "microns" not "mm" ---> p.9, line 3: I believe the units in flux should be "micron" not "um" ---> p.9 table: the unit for columns 4-5 should say "Pixels" (plural) for consistency ---> p.10 table: The comment for column 12 should say singular "comet" ---> p.8, line after first equation: I believe the units in flux should be "micron" not "um" ---> p.7, Section 3.7, paragraph 2, line 2: Should "VC" be "UC"? --------------------------------------------------------------- EPOXI MRI-VIS 103/Hartley 2 Encounter Photometry Collection lienslist Reviewer: Mike Kelly --------------------------------------------------------------- ---> Identification_Area - Fix name of comet "103P/Hartley 2" in title: EPOXI MRI-VIS 103/Hartley 2 Encounter Photometry Collection ---> Modification_History (in all labels) - This data set labeled v1.0, but v1.0 was a PDS3 data set by Williams et al. I recommend v2. ---> Does Modification_Detail "Initial conversion from PDS3 to PDS4" make sense in this dataset's context? This is a whole new dataset/version. It is not a conversion from the Williams et al. PDS3 dataset. There should be some note that explains this is a new version of the Williams et al. data set. Is Modification_Detail the right place? overview.txt ---> character encoding is off: There are UTF-8 characters, but emacs displayed it as iso-latin-1-dos? I got an error with "mousepad". Please correct. Photometry document ----------------------------------------------------------------- Liens recommended by Engineering node ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---> Standards 2B.2.2.1 recommends directory name be data_*. (e.g. hartley2_photometry/ is not following this recommendation). ---> It is recommended that a collection should have products of similar type (DPH 8.0). Suggest replacing bundle.xml hartley2_photometry/ data/ documentation/ with something like bundle.xml data/ document/ Correspondingly, the LIDs would change from urn:nasa:pds:epoxi_mri:hartley2_photometry:prof_err urn:nasa:pds:epoxi_mri:hartley2_photometry:epoxi_photometry_v4 to urn:nasa:pds:epoxi_mri:data:prof_err urn:nasa:pds:epoxi_mri:document:epoxi_photometry_v4 ---> Recommend to replace /hartley2_photometry/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. The naming convention for them are currently being worked. If LIDs are desirable, the LIDS in the files may end up changing. ---> documents/epoxi_photometry_V4.xml the .xml file has EPOXI_photometry_V4.pdf but the case of the actual file name differs:epoxi_photometry_V4.pdf ---------------------------------------------------------------- Certification status: Certified for immediate release.