DART DRACO Liens ================ Documentation ============= --> In data_dracocal/calibration lookup tables, consider changing smart quotes (‘...’) to straight quotes ('...'). file: jhuapl_dart_draco_uncalibrated_calibrated_sis_v1.pdf --> Table 5: I/F is unitless, so this should not be the unit of the pixel value. --> Missing 2 pages of cheatsheet in pages 4 and 5 (Will be added later in the formal release?) --> Some important documents are referred to in the SIS. Should they be included in the document collection? Or will they eventually be added? ----> Page 8: DRACO DMAP ----> Page 26: DART Derived Data Product Software Interface Specification ----> Page 39: DART Coordinate System for Didymos document? --> Page 28, Table 7 lists the number of various calibration files that could be included. But they are not consistent with what’s in the sample dataset ----> 32 dark frame files included in the sample, but Table 7 says sup to 8 ----> 8 radiometric look up table files included in the sample, but Table 7 says up to 7 --> Page 29, 5.1 states that data archive is organized by mission phase, then product level. This is not consistent with the current directory structure of the data bundle. --> Page 55: "DRACO IS", IS (instrument scientist?) is not defined. Table 12: why all keywords start with a #? Other tables (8 - 11) don’t have this problem. Add a comment that # is there for processing purposes. --> OBSTYPE = STREAMING for ‘commissioning/2021/355/dart_0377785806_05467_01_[raw|rad].fits’, but this value is not listed in SIS document Table 2. file: jhuapl_dart_draco_calibration_pipeline_description_v1.pdf --> Page 7, 3.2.6: What is PTC? "PTC analysis shows that images taken with 30x/global shutter cannot be reliably radiometrically corrected." --> Table 3 is mentioned in Page 14 4.4.8 but is missing (also missing in the previously reviewed doc) --> Page 15: misspelled keyword "REFDKAR2" (same as in the previously reviewed doc) Data ==== Display orientation problem --> SIS statement about the display direction of various software (4.1.6.2) is either wrong or unclear. ----> DS9 actually puts the first pixel at lower left (SIS says upper left). ----> I think ATV does the same as DS9, but didn’t verify (SIS says upper left). ----> Does the statement about `astropy` actually refer to `matplotlib.pyplot.imshow`? `astropy` only provides I/O for FITS, but not display --> Checked dart_0377785806_05467_01_raw and _rad ----> Both has DISPLAY_DIRECTION keywords consistent with SIS (left_to_right, top_to_bottom) ----> For each image, DS9 and pds4_viewer show mutually flipped orientation, consistent with the fact that pds4_viewer follows the DISPlAY_DIRECTION keywords to put the first pixel at top left, and DS9 puts the first pixel at bottom left ----> Each software show the same orientation for both cal levels, suggesting no flip between cal levels ----> .png thumbnail images of two cal levels have mutually flipped orientation - which one is correct? --> Data provider should carefully check the orientation for all cal levels, and correct any problems in the SIS and in the data --> The data in "data_dracoddp/" is sample, should be marked somewhere. --> Add explanation of error propagation and uncertainties. Suggestions --> More data included in the sample data review would be better ----> More diverse situations to check against the documents ----> More complicated cases encountered by the calibration and data prep pipelines ----> With limited data, many aspects cannot be effectively checked ----> More beneficial to the data preparation teams, and more efficient use of reviewers’ time --> Some data mentioned in the documents should be included to help the review, specifically in SIS: ----> Page 20, partial header example: dart_0376599992_26784_01_raw.fits ----> Page 20, incomplete image example: dart_0380603034_08537_01_raw.fits ----> Page 20, misconfigured raw 0376147120_43856 - 376161226_45633 ----> Page 20, test pattern example 376146984_05334 ----> Figure 7 dart_0377800188_19062_01_cal.fits EN Review ========= *.xml - Many labels have urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument_host:dart.spacecraft which should be urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument_host:spacecraft.dart - Suggestion: beyond bundle.xml and collection*.xml, add lid_reference to target bundle.xml - Please change this lid_reference urn:nasa:pds:context:target:asteroid.didymos to urn:nasa:pds:context:target:asteroid.65803_didymos - Suggestion: add lid_references to spacecraft and instrument - For the rest of PDS, bundle.xml needs Citation_Information/doi. I don't know what SBN does. data_dracocal/.../*.xml - Many labels have urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument_host:dart.spacecraft which should be urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument_host:spacecraft.dart data_dracocal/collection.xml - Please change this lid_reference urn:nasa:pds:context:target:asteroid.didymos to urn:nasa:pds:context:target:asteroid.65803_didymos data_dracoddp/.../*.xml - Many labels have urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument_host:dart.spacecraft which should be urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument_host:spacecraft.dart data_dracoddp/collection.xml - Please change this lid_reference urn:nasa:pds:context:target:asteroid.didymos to urn:nasa:pds:context:target:asteroid.65803_didymos Note that the only other file in this collection that references target Didymos does it right, dart_0717892213_00957_01_geo.xml data_dracoddp/final/2022/274/dart_0717892213_00957_01_geo.xml - This and data_dracoddp/dart_0717892213_00957_01_geo.xml have the same logical_identifier, which is illegal: urn:nasa:pds:dart:data_dracoddp:dart_0717892213_00957_01_geo - Line 101: this value is illegal dis Legal values defined in PDS4_DART_1E00_1000.sch are 'DYNAHORZ', 'FLAT', 'STATHORZ', 'TWOBOX' data_dracoraw/.../*.xml - Many labels have urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument_host:dart.spacecraft which should be urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument_host:spacecraft.dart data_dracoraw/collection.xml - Please change this lid_reference urn:nasa:pds:context:target:asteroid.didymos to urn:nasa:pds:context:target:asteroid.65803_didymos data_dracoraw/commissioning/2021/336/dart_0376144597_01640_01_raw.metadata - No label references this file, which is bad. If it's intended to be there, perhaps another File_Area_Observational_Supplemental to the .xml data_dracoraw/commissioning/2021/336/dart_0376144597_01640_01_raw.xml - No collection.csv has this file's LID: - This file's LID is not listed in any collection.csv urn:nasa:pds:dart:data_dracoraw:dart_0376144597_01640_01_raw document_draco/collection.xml - Please change these lid_references urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument_host:dart.spacecraft urn:nasa:pds:context:target:asteroid.didymos to urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument_host:spacecraft.dart urn:nasa:pds:context:target:asteroid.65803_didymos Technical PDS Review ==================== Bundle Label --> Incorrect LID of "urn:nasa:pds:context:target:asteroid.didymos" for Didymos still appears. Correct LID is "urn:nasa:pds:context:target:asteroid.65803_didymos". --> publication_year is still listed as 2021. --> s should use the attribute instead of and include the version id of their collections (in this case, 1.0). Format: urn:nasa:pds:dart:collection_lid::X.x Collection Labels --> Incorrect LID of "urn:nasa:pds:context:target:asteroid.didymos" for Didymos still appears. --> publication_year is still listed as 2021 for dracoraw and document collections. --> In , please include an abstract-level description of the collection. When a collection is returned in a search, users will read the text from this field to determine if they have found the right dataset. --> Collection LIDs for data collections do not match LIDs used in products or inventory files. Suggest changing of collection label lids to match other LIDs: urn:nasa:pds:dart:dracoraw -> urn:nasa:pds:dart:data_dracoraw urn:nasa:pds:dart:dracoddp -> urn:nasa:pds:dart:data_dracoddp urn:nasa:pds:dart:dracocal -> urn:nasa:pds:dart:data_dracocal Observational Product Labels --> Please remove the line "xmlns:img="http://pds.nasa.gov/pds4/img/v1" from inside the Product_Observational tag in labels that do not use the Imaging dictionary. file: data_dracoddp/final/2022/274/dart_0717892213_00957_01_geo.xml --> Invalid value of "dis" still appears for attribute dart:test_pattern. file: data_dracoraw/commissioning/2021/336/dart_0376144597_01640_01_raw.xml --> This file is missing from the dracoraw collection inventory. --> The directory that includes this file also has an extraneous .metadata file of the same name, which does not appear anywhere else. file: data_dracoddp/dart_0717892213_00957_01_geo.xml,fits --> An extra copy of dart_0717892213_00957_01_geo.xml and .fits appear in the root directory for this collection. Collection Names For the collection names ( ), DRACO is mentioned three times, twice as an acronym and once spelled out. This is very redundant. Please consider rethinking how to name these collections. Example: <title>Draco Calibrated Data Collection for the Didymos Reconnaissance and Asteroid Camera for OpNav (DRACO) instrument Suggested rename for the above example: * Didymos Reconnaissance and Asteroid Camera for OpNav (DRACO) Calibrated Data * Calibrated Data Collection for the Didymos Reconnaissance and Asteroid Camera for OpNav (DRACO) instrument As a side not, there is no mention of mission acronym or name in collection name. This may be fine. But if you wanted to add it, I would suggest adding it just before "Didymos ..." in the examples above, as "DART Didymos ...". These 's are important because we use them for citation information in the DOIs (which will be sent to the ADS) and on webpages for the collections. They will also be important later for once PDS search services are avaiable. Author Lists Sanity check: In the previous peer review R. Espiritu was listed as an editor, not an author. Please ensure that all those listed as authors are really authors and not editors. This information gets feed into the DOI and we should ensure correct credit is where it should be. Typo: There are many instances where the <author_list> does not have a space after a semi-colon. Please add it to be consistant. Example from bundle*.xml file, noting the missing space between the first two authors: <author_list>Ernst, C.;Daly, T.; Barnouin, O.; Espiritu, R.</author_list> If you have any questions, SBN personnell should be able to clarify, but ultimately it is the decision of the data providers.