=============================================== NOTE: (1) Comments submitted for the New Horizons K7 Arrokoth Shape model peer review (2024-09-24) by SBN:T.Barnes =============================================== Datasets Validated: urn:nasa:pds:nh_derived:shape_models::1.0 =============================================== Errors for: urn:nasa:pds:nh_derived:shape_models::1.0 file: 'collection.lblx' --> No authors or editors. --> Generic title: "New Horizons Shape Model Collection" --> --> Should we just have a collection for Arrokoth models? Should we have a collection for each model set based on producer? Including this one there are 4 shape models sets related to Arrokoth. --> --> Note that the overview.txt file describes this collection as containing "derived shape models for the New Horizons Arrokoth encounter." This is more specific than the collection title implies. --> formatting: should be a new line --> Please add to the Identification_Area.Citation_Information.description a Funding_Acknowledgement statement. --> --> You may also want to mention that only mission provided data is in this collection, as opposed to those from R&A grants. Note that this is mentioned in the overview document. --> Add a Reference_List and as a member an internal_reference to the overview document. --> The shape model (and others for that matter) say they used some/all resolved LORRI images from the Arrokoth encounter. Should we add a Source_Product_Internal reference to the Reference_List? Would that be the urn:nasa:pds:nh_lorri:kem1_cal::1.0 collection or the PDS3 NH-A-LORRI-3-KEM1-V6.0? Where any K6 or K7 images used? --> Add a Context_Area and add target of Arrokoth, mission(s), spacecraft, instrument LORRI? --> I believe that the Collection.collection_type should be "Data" not "Document" as currently presented. file: 'overview.txt' --> typo: "THe SOC" => "The SOC" --> If this is where all Arrokoth models are going to live, can you add a brief explanation of the current model? There are 3 other models that will eventually be migrated here, at which time those details will be added. file: 'arrokkoth_porter_2024.lblx' --> Is File_Area_Ancillary appropriate? Needs to be approved by curating node. --> Identification_Area.Citation_Information.description have details I would expect in a file description, not a citation description. --> --> Please remove the lines from "The shape model has the following internal format" to the end. Perhaps you can add it as a File_Area_Ancillary.File.comment? But this structure is described in the PDS label; it does not need to be duplicated here. --> --> Anne: Why is file format here when it is described in the label. --> The Identification_Area.Citation_Information.description says that this is an updated shape model. --> --> Should this be a version of that model, or are they two distinct models? TB would lean towards distinct models. --> --> Should we provide a link to the model it is mentioning, if able? --> The Identification_Area.Citation_Information.description says that this shape model uses all resolved images of Arrokoth. Should we add a Source_Product_Internal reference to the Reference_List? Would that be the urn:nasa:pds:nh_lorri:kem1_cal::1.0 collection or the PDS3 NH-A-LORRI-3-KEM1-V6.0? Where any K6 or K7 images used? --> Reference_List, should include reference to the published paper Porter, et al. (2024b), not just the internal copy. --> Context_Area.Time_Coordinates are currently listed as inapplicable. Should we have a time range matching that of the data used to derive this product? --> --> Is it enough that this information is mentioned in the Identification_Area.Citation_Information.description? --> Context_Area.* Context name mismatch. Please update the following for the LID: --> --> for urn:nasa:pds:context:investigation:mission.new_horizons_kem1 => "New Horizons Kuiper Belt Extended Mission" --> --> for urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument_host:spacecraft.nh => "New Horizons" --> --> for urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument:nh.lorri => "LOng Range Reconnaisance Imager" --> --> for urn:nasa:pds:context:target:trans-neptunian_object.486958_2014_mu69 => ""(486958) Arrokoth" --> Update the Reference_List.Internal_Reference.comment for urn:nasa:pds:nh_derived:shape_models:porteretal2024b to reflect it is for this shape model and that it describes how the model was created. The current comment does neither. I do not believe the rest of the content is relevant. file: 'porteretal2024b.lblx' --> Should include a DOI external_reference to the published paper in the Reference_List if it is published. --> In the Identification_Area.Citation_Information.description, please mention that this is a draft of published or soon to be published paper. --> Surprised to see an editor's list. Are they editors of this paper or just the label? I see no impression of that. --> Context_Area.* Context name mismatch. Please update the following for the LID: --> --> for urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument_host:spacecraft.nh => "New Horizons" --> Suggest to add to the Context_Area the LORRI instrument. ====================== For discussion: Where to put this collection and any related data from migration or future. Current nh_derived bundle uses xml files, but shape_models collection uses lblx files. (easy to change if needed) overview.txt and collection.lblx implies this collection will house all Arrokoth shape models for the New Horizon mission. Do we really want to do that? --> Currently only contains a new Arrokoth model --> The only other shapemodels we have around are for Arrokoth: https://pdssbn.astro.umd.edu/holdings/nh-a-lorri_mvic-5-geophys-v1.0/data/shape_models/ --> I had thought we had pluto/charon (and other Pluto satellites?) shape models, but I was wrong, they were never delivered to PDS. --> Should we rename this collection to more specify Arrokoth models from the NH team? Should we create a NH shape model bundle, and have each model be its own collection? This would allow each shape model (along with its different sizes or formats) to be given a single DOI for people to reference. How do we want to migrate the K4 (KEM) Arrakoth shapemodels? I assume we will want to separate them from the existing K4 GEOPHYS dataset.