General Comments for the LICIACube bundle for the 2022 May 13 Peer review by SBN: T.Barnes

urn:nasa:pds:liciacube::1.0
urn:nasa:pds:liciacube:document::1.0
urn:nasa:pds:liciacube:leia_calibrated::1.0
urn:nasa:pds:liciacube:leia_raw::1.0
urn:nasa:pds:liciacube:luke_calibrated::1.0
urn:nasa:pds:liciacube:luke_raw::1.0


Issue #1:

The Observing_System_Component instruments and host use acronyms instead of the full name.  Is this appropriate?  I will note that the full name is mentioned in the description instead.


Issue #2:

Document collection states "65803 Didymos" as the target.  Is that appropriate for a document collection?  Is this target observed or discussed?


Issue #3:

Should the moon of Didymos be included as a target (where appropriate)?  For instance, the dart shape model collections do.


Issue #4:

The document collection inventory file has a filename of "collection_document.csv."  I don't know if this is a problem or not, but thought it was strange.


Issue #5: 

The collection descriptions (i.e. abstracts) are rather vague.  It would be nice to include some more detail of what was/will-be observed and perhaps even when.


Issue #6:

LUKE calib collection is called "derived" instead of "calibrated" in the description and title.  Which is correct?  LEIA is as expected.


Issue #7:

The collection descriptions (i.e. abstracts) say they are part of the LICIACube mission, but the Investigation_Area says it is DART.  The description should probably at least mention DART, but should there be an investigation area for LUCIACube?


Issue #8:

The collection titles for Luke and Leia are a little confusing.  I would recommend either replacing the LICIACube full expanded name with only the acronym OR including the acronym for the instrument as well.  Otherwise the two seem to merge together.