[ERROR] means that there is an error that needs to be fixed. [WARN] means that there may be an error or that there is an error that may be ignored. =============================================== NOTE: (1) These comments are for the 2023 Sept 15 DART Peer review. =============================================== Datasets Validated: urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:data_lcoimacscal::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:data_lcoimacsddp::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:data_lcoimacsraw::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:data_lcoswopecal::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:data_lcoswopeddp::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:data_lcoswoperaw::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:document_lco::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:data_lcogt_flical::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:data_lcogt_fliddp::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:data_lcogt_fliraw::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:data_lcogtcal::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:data_lcogtddp::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:data_lcogtraw::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:document_lcogt::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:data_ldtcal::2.0 urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:data_ldtddp::2.0 urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:data_ldtraw::2.0 urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:data_mrocal::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:data_mroddp::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:data_mroraw::1.0 urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:document_mro::1.0 =============================================== Errors for: General comments Target of Didymos, but many times text talks about Didymos system. Should add target? I recall this being talked about during the previous review. --> Important ingested target context LIDS: --> --> (65803) Didymos: urn:nasa:pds:context:target:asteroid.65803_didymos --> --> (65803) Didymos I (Dimorphos): urn:nasa:pds:context:target:satellite.65803_didymos.dimorphos Sanity question: For the ground based telescopic data, in the situation where the target is specified as Didymos, should this really be the Didymos System? I ask since when for instance in the derived photometry data set they are providing magnitude values, it really is for the system, not just Didymos, since the increases that they are measuring are a combination of Didymos and the results of the impact (before, during, and after). Consider making the collection.xml internal reference to the overview document a LIDVID reference instead of LID reference. This is due to newer versions of an overview document being pointed to by an older version of the collection when the newer version overview document may not correctly apply to it. --> This especially pertinent to the LDT DDP data collection where the overview document changed, and the newer version is not relevant to the older collection. SBN should generate DOIs and put the into the collection.xml files (and bundle.xml?). =============================================== Errors for: DART LCO collections EBT dictionary errors: --> [error.label.schema] line 131, 101: cvc-elt.3.1: Attribute 'http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance,nil' must not appear on element 'ebt:coordinate_system_equinox', because the {nillable} property of 'ebt:coordinate_system_equinox' is false. [10158 occurrences within 10158 files] --> --> Example: data_lcoimacscal/ut220702/rift1034c2_220702.xml (line 131) --> [error.label.schema] line 131, 101: cvc-type.3.1.1: Element 'ebt:coordinate_system_equinox' is a simple type, so it cannot have attributes, excepting those whose namespace name is identical to 'http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance' and whose [local name] is one of 'type', 'nil', 'schemaLocation' or 'noNamespaceSchemaLocation'. However, the attribute, 'nilReason' was found. --> --> Example: data_lcoimacscal/ut220702/rift1034c2_220702.xml (line 131) Needed Context objects created: --> urn:nasa:pds:context:telescope:las_campanas.swope_1m --> --> One may already exist as: urn:nasa:pds:context:telescope:las_campanas.swope_1m0 --> urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument:las_campanas.swope_1m.4k_ccd --> --> Oddly, no swope scopes already ingested despite the telescope being there. Assuming the prior telescope id I found is correct, suggest altering the part of the id to be swope_1m0 instead of swope_1m within the collections. file: 'collection*.xml' --> For the document collection, in the Identification_Area , instead of saying "The document_loc collection", say "This collection" or "This document collection ". Using the directory name or collection part of the LID should not be used. --> Please rename the s. Please remove commas and "Telescopic Observations", and consider including the instrument and target. --> --> Note that the overview document title gives a <title> that is more concise. It might be a good to incorporate into the collection title. Also so as to not confuse people with very different titles, where one could infer the overview is for a different collection based on the title. --> --> If the derived data is only photometry, I would suggest adding that to the <title> --> Please add an internal reference to the overview document. --> For the raw IMACS collection, the target Didymos or Didymos system are not mentioned in the <description> of this collection. Shouldn't that be mentioned, especially if the calibrated and derived data collections do? files: 'data*/collection*overview.txt' --> These files describe the file naming convention. File naming should not matter in PDS4. If any of this information is not found in a label, it should be put there. It does appear that the information is present, but should be double checked. --> For the DDP collections, in the last full sentence, it says the ascii tables are in "the following format." Please replace the period with a semi-colon. --> For the DDP collections, there are multiple references cited, but no where are the references resolved. Please add them to the end of this document. files: 'data_*_ddp/ut*/photometry*.{tab,xml}' --> Suggest renaming field 4 from "flag" to "discrepant flag" (or something similar) for the purpose of giving a clue to the user what they are looking at without reading the description. --> Note that the description for the magnitude field specifically states that the value is the "Calibrated magnitude estimate of Didymos" even though I thought many of these measurements were really in the change of the Didymos system especially since the change was due to the impact of Dimorphos, not Didymos. The File <comment> makes a similar assertion as the field description. In support of this change, the overview document for the collection does correctly say it is for the Didymos system. --> The SBN strongly encourages the use of the <field_format> keyword for all fields in a table. Please add these. --> Filenames are used to link individual data rows to the source data, but in PDS4 filenames are not fixed nor relevant and may change. A better field would be to use the LIDVID. file: 'document_lco/lco_dart_sis.pdf' --> File is PDF/A-3a compliant, but must be 1a or 1b, not 3a. Note: I double checked that all referenced CAL files in the DDP tables existed. =============================================== Errors for: DART LCOGT collections Note for PDS: PDS4_Viewer comes up with an error message about not having defined display information in the labels that have multiple images, but they appear present and linked in properly. --> Example: data_lcogtraw/lcogt_1m0_06_fa07_20230125/elp1m006-fa07-20230125-0058-e00.xml Observing_System Context Objects: --> The collection.xml files have different information/format than what is found in the data products or the document collection.xml. They should be consistant. For instance: --> --> Telescope: In the data collection.xml files, each individual LCOGT 1m NN telescope is listed whereas in the in the data products NN is dropped so all telescope names are the same. In the data products the unique NN is specified in the description. In the collection.xml files, the LCOGT name is abbreviated whereas the data products spell it out. --> --> Instrument: In the collection.xml files it says "Sinistro Camera" whereas in the data products it includes the telescope name. --> Should each Telescope LCOGT 1m-NN be a unique context object entry or combined into a "Telescopes" entry as is with the ingested context object? If the former, can they all still point to the same context LID? --> The collection.xml does not have any LIDs, whereas the the data products have LIDs, but in some cases they are wrong. Here are the existing names and LIDs based on the ingested context object files: --> --> Host: Las Cumbres Observatory (urn:nasa:pds:context:facility:observatory.las_cumbres) --> --> Telescope: Las Cumbres Global Telescope Network - 1m Telescopes (urn:nasa:pds:context:telescope:las_cumbres.1m0_telescopes) --> --> Instrument: Las Cumbres 1m Telescopes - Sinistro Camera (urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument:las_cumbres.1m0_telescopes.sinistro) --> Need to create a context object for the FLI Camera (LID in labels: urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument:las_cumbres.1m0_telescopes.fli) --> The <description> for each of these context objects says to look in the bundle for their descriptions (where would they look, its a big bundle). This is not appropriate, especially since there are only brief descriptions of the instruments found in the document collection, and nothing about the host or telescopes, even though they say to look there. Please add a brief description here. file: '*/collection*.xml' --> For data_lcgt* (not _fli) files have multiple instances of the same telescopes. There should only be one instance. I suggest sorting them by type (as is currently done) and then alphabetically, keeping only one instance of each telescope, assuming we are not combining them all into one instance. --> There are no context object LIDs for any of the NN telescopes. Please add. --> The data files corresponding data_lcogt* and data_lcogt_fli* have the same <title> and <description>. Should include mention of the Imager (Sinistro vs FLI) to make them unique. --> Please update the <title> and <description> for document_lcogt <Identification_Area>, to better conform to what the data collections share. Currently the description is almost meaningless, and the title should not really have commas. --> I noticed that there are no editors listed in the Identification_Area, unlike all the other ground_based collections associated with DART. Is this correct? --> I would not expect there to be a Target_Identification section for the document collection. Please remove. file: 'data_lcogt_fliraw/collection_data_lcogt_fliraw.csv' --> The first LID is wrong. It is missing the 'w' in 'overview', and should be: urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:data_lcogt_fliraw:collection_data_lcogt_fliraw_overview::1.0 file: 'document_lcogt/collection_lcogtdoc.xml' --> the <Inventory> <records> should be corrected to 3 from 2. files: 'data_lcogt*/*/*.xml' --> The Observing_System context objects have multiple <description> values that include the text: "The description for the host can be found in the document collection for this bundle." Please remove this text. Please replace with a brief description. Also note that there are no such descriptions for the Host, nor Telescope, even though this text implies there is. files: 'data_lcogtddp/lcogt*/*photometry.{tab,xml}' --> The SBN strongly encourages the use of the <field_format> keyword for all fields in a table. Please add these. --> Filenames are used to link individual data rows to the source data, but in PDS4 filenames are not fixed nor relevant and may change. A better field would be to use the LIDVID. =============================================== Errors for: DART LDT collections Context Object Errors: --> I do not know why, but the context LIDs and some names have changed in this delivery. They should be the following: --> --> Telescope "Lowell Discovery Telescope": urn:nasa:pds:context:telescope:lowell.discovery_4m3 --> --> --> Bad values found in labels: "Discovery Channel Telescope" and urn:nasa:pds:context:telescope:lowell.ldt4m3 --> --> --> The <name> was changed from LDT to DCT for the Telescope Observing_System_Component from v1.0 --> --> Instrument "Large Monolithic Imager" : urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument:lowell.discovery_4m3.lmi --> --> --> Bad values found in labels: urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument:lowell.ldt4m3.lmi --> --> Target Didymos: urn:nasa:pds:context:target:asteroid.65803_didymos --> --> --> Bad values found in labels: urn:nasa:pds:context:target:asteroid.65803.didymos and urn:nasa:pds:context:target:asteroid.didymos files: '*/collection*.xml' --> The <title> values were updated in the v1.0 release and should be updated here as well. --> --> raw: DART Lowell Discovery Telescope (LDT) Raw Data Collection --> --> cal: DART Lowell Discovery Telescope (LDT) Calibrated Data Collection --> --> ddp: DART Lowell Discovery Telescope (LDT) Derived Data Product Collection --> The <description> values were replaced with meaningless text. Please replace and update with what was in the prior version. --> --> Example from data_ldtcal v1.0: =================== <description>We obtained images of the (65803) Didymos system and supporting calibration images with the Lowell Discovery Telescope (LDT) through a VR filter. These images were taken in order to determine the orbit period of Dimorphos, the satellite of Didymos. This collection consists of the Lowell calibrated images, the supporting calibration images: master bias frame images, and master flat field images, and the reference star PNGs.</description> =================== --> I would not expect there to be a Target_Identification section for the document collection. Please remove. --> The data collections have an erroneous carriage return within the <lid_reference> field for DART in the Investigation_Area. Please remove. --> The data collections have an erroneous carriage return within the <lid_reference> field for the first Internal_Reference in the Reference_List for the SIS. Please remove. --> The data collections needs to add a link to the overview document to the Reference_List. file: 'data_ldtcal/collection_data_ldtcal_overview.txt' --> typo: "Dimoprhos" => "Dimorphos". This was fixed in v1.0, but is here again. file: 'data_ldtraw/collection_data_ldtraw_overview.txt' --> typo twice: "Dimoprhos" => "Dimorphos". This was fixed in v1.0, but is here again. file: 'data_ldtddp/collection_data_ldtddp.csv' --> The version number for the the LIDVID urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:data_ldtddp:collection_data_ldtddp_overview should be "2.0" not "1.0" file: 'data_ldtddp/collection_data_ldtddp_overview.txt' --> Note that this file mentions that the "ldt_20230314_didymos_photometry.tab" file has low data quality. I would recommend you use the LIDVID, not a filename as the filename may not be preserved. file: 'data_ldtraw/collection_data_ldtraw.csv' --> The first LIDVID has two errors, first "urnn" => "urn" and second it is missing a version. It should be: urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:data_ldtraw:collection_data_ldtraw_overview::1.0 files: 'data_ldtddp/ldt*/*photometry.{tab,xml}' --> The SBN strongly encourages the use of the <field_format> keyword for all fields in a table. Please add these. --> Filenames are used to link individual data rows to the source data, but in PDS4 filenames are not fixed nor relevant and may change. A better field would be to use the LIDVID. =============================================== Errors for: DART MRO collections file: '*/collection*.xml' --> Please add an internal reference to the overview document. --> Please rename the <title>s. Please remove commas and "Telescopic Observations", and consider including the instrument and target. --> --> Suggest adding Photometry to the DDP <title> to describe the kind of derived data present (or just replace the word derived) --> For the calibrated data collection, the target Didymos or Didymos system are not mentioned in the <description> of this collection. Shouldn't that be mentioned, especially if the raw and derived data collections do? file: 'document_mro/collection_document_mro.csv' --> The first LID listed has the wrong collection ID. Please fix "mro_doc" to be "document_mro: urn:nasa:pds:dart_teleobs:document_mro:mro_2p4m_dart_pds_sis::1.0 file: 'data_mroddp/mro_221011/mro_221011_didymos_photometry.tab_bad' --> Remove this file. It is not referenced and does not have a label appears to be have been in error in delivering. files: 'data_mroddp/mro*/*photometry.{tab,xml}' --> The SBN strongly encourages the use of the <field_format> keyword for all fields in a table. Please add these. --> Note: Aside from the exposure mid-time, I saw no way to link which calibrated products were used to produce the photometry tables. This was done for the other telescopes using filename, but LIDVID would be better.