General Comments for the DART Shapemodel collections for the 2022 May 13 Peer review by SBN: T.Barnes

urn:nasa:pds:dart:shapemodel::1.0
urn:nasa:pds:dart:shapemodeldoc::1.0


Issue #1:

The observing_system_component Host and instrument names are acronyms, not the full name as listed in the description.  Is this okay?


Issue #2:

Is the target name "65803-1 Dimorpho" correct way to signify a satellite?  Do we care?


Issue #3:

A lot of lines are not visually aligned properly in the collection*.xml files.


Issue #4:

Is it appropriate for the document collection to reference targets of the data collection?


Issue #5:

The collection descriptions (i.e. abstracts) are vague but probably fine for the document collection.  For the data collection, I would recommend including the target names and expanding out "DART" as was done for LICIACube.