L'Ralph LEISA Liens =================== These liens are for the entire bundle and all collections therein. Liens may not apply or be relevant in all places. SPECIAL_NOTE ============ The final reconstructed Lucy-target ephemeris (SPK) for the Dinkinesh flyby was generated using data dependent on an SCLK kernel (version 29) that had been frozen by the project before the encounter for uplink planning purposes. Compared to later SCLK kernel versions, the version used in processing did not properly account for the drift in the spacecraft clock that occurred during the freeze period. This resulted in an ephemeris timing error of a few tenths of a second. The instrument data products included in this submission were processed using the final SPK noted above, but with a later version of the SCLK kernel (version 33) and with attitude kernels (CKs) whose pointing timings were derived directly from this later SCLK version. The net effect of all this is that there are small errors in the geometry as calculated using NAIF SPICE, and these errors are most significant, small as they are, at the time of encounter close approach. Product labels are affected to the extent they inherit geometric quantities from the data above. The instrument data product portions affected are as follows: (1) header data (keyword/value pairs) related to geometry (ALL products) (2) L’Ralph LEISA "backplane" FITS extension that contains geometry information for each frame (UDP and CDP products) (3) L’TES geometry arrays in CDP products. To mitigate the effect of the geometry timing error, the user may choose to re-calculate the SPICE information using the latest kernel set published in the Lucy SPICE archive. Note that the erroneous SPK was not published to the archive, although SCLK versions 29 and 33 were. During lien resolution, all data will be reprocessed using an updated SPK that corrects the aforementioned timing issue. The geometric reprocessing will use SPK lcy_230815_240201_240101_dinkinesh_reconstruction_final_v2.bsp, which has been delivered to NAIF and appears in the Lucy SPICE archive. Bundle ====== file: readme.txt --> Remove contact information. Documentation ============= file: leisa_sis.pdf --> Possible discrepancy between documentation and some of the files: Documentation states dimensions of individual layers are 1472x1024, which matches some of the individual calibration files, but not the data cubes and other individual calibration files. Ensure documentation explains why full frame is not always read out. --> The array temperature is 119K, but calcorr for temperature only goes to 117K. Discrepancy should be explained. --> Ensure calibration steps are clearly explained. e.g. clarify distinction between flat field and fringe flat. file: 'calibration/collection_overview.txt' --> There are mentioned three major types of files, but not the Wavemap and BPM products. file: 'document/collection_overview.txt' --> The Documents section mentions that documents are named in one of two ways, the first descriptive, the second being based on Open Access DOI. This second is not the case for filename, nor document title. It then starts to describe what a descriptive case might be, but ends up describing a single case in detail. Then finally mentions "two additional documents", which reads as if they should not conform to the prior methods, but they kind of do. Please clarify or correct this whole paragraph. file: 'document/lralph_ssr.xml' --> line 60 typo: The Context_Area.Observing_System_Component.Internal_Reference.lid_reference for the MVIC instrument, points to LEISA instead of MVIC. It should be 'urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument:lucy.mvic'. Data ==== --> Unclear on how to determine integration time. from the file label: int_time=73.89ms sp net integration time int_time=69.84ms. leisa integration time From the SIS: LEIINT = (XTNUM + 3 + (2048 - XTNUM) / 144 + DF) * 0.72ms – equation in SIS leiint=(80+3 + ((2048-80)/144)+0)*.72ms which gives 69.6ms. --> The calibrated data in lei_0752129956_02302_sci_04.fit seem to have some pedestal coming and going between frames. Labels ====== --> Provide valid Display_Settings where missing to eliminate PDS4viewer warning about display settings. Should double check the following Label Context Reference Mismatches, if they are using the correct target reference LID. Note there is always the option to not use a reference LID when none other is appropriate, or one may be created if it makes sense: --> --> 'Fringe Flat' vs 'Flat Field' (urn:nasa:pds:context:target:calibrator.flat_field) (note this is a migration for PDS3, description is lacking....) --> --> --> Affected files: 'calibration/*_fflat_0*.xml' --> --> 'Space Stare' vs 'SPACE' (urn:nasa:pds:context:target:calibration_field.space) --> --> --> Affected files: 'calibration/*_space_01.xml' --> --> --> Note that L'TES uses 'SPACE_CAL' instead. files: 'calibration/[BLWl]*.xml' (data products) --> Specify units if applicable. files: 'data_dinkinesh_calibrated/lei*.xml' --> Should the Array_3D and Array_2D objects have a unit? The raw data specifies in the label "DN" as expected. EN Review ========= lucy.leisa:calibration *.xml (many, not all) - Suggestion: to match the context products, change LEISA Fringe Flat Space Stare Lucy Spacecraft Lucy Mission to Lucy Ralph Linear Etalon Imaging Spectral Array (LEISA) FLAT FIELD SPACE Lucy Lucy collection.xml - The product in this lid_reference isn't given here. Verify the LID is correct urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucy_mission_info In the 2023.05 review, many collection.xml had a lid_reference to urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucymissioninfo and one file lucy.misson/document_mission/mission_document.xml had LID urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:$lid lucy.leisa:data_dinkinesh_calibrated *.xml (many, not all) - Suggestion: to match the context products, change Lucy Mission Lucy Spacecraft DINKINESH to Lucy Lucy (152830) Dinkinesh collection.xml - The product in this lid_reference isn't given here. Verify the LID is correct urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucy_mission_info In the 2023.05 review, many collection.xml had a lid_reference to urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucymissioninfo lei_0752129330_02298_sci_04.xml lei_0752129711_02300_sci_03.xml lei_0752129956_02302_sci_04.xml - Each has a lid_reference that doesn't match LIDs in leisa.calibrated. Here: urn:nasa:pds:lucy.leisa:calibration:lei_0752129330_02298_space urn:nasa:pds:lucy.leisa:calibration:lei_0752129711_02300_space urn:nasa:pds:lucy.leisa:calibration:lei_0752129956_02302_space The LIDs in leisa.calibrated: urn:nasa:pds:lucy.leisa:calibration:lei_0752129330_02298_space_01 urn:nasa:pds:lucy.leisa:calibration:lei_0752129711_02300_space_01 urn:nasa:pds:lucy.leisa:calibration:lei_0752129956_02302_space_01 lucy.leisa:data_dinkinesh_raw *.xml (many, not all) - Suggestion: to match the context products, change Lucy Mission Lucy Spacecraft DINKINESH to Lucy Lucy (152830) Dinkinesh collection.xml - The product in this lid_reference isn't given here. Verify the LID is correct urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucy_mission_info In the 2023.05 review, many collection.xml had a lid_reference to urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucymissioninfo lucy.leisa:document *.xml (many, not all) - Suggestion: to match the context products, change Lucy Mission Lucy Spacecraft to Lucy Lucy - Suggestion: add lid_reference to target collection.xml - The product in this lid_reference isn't given here. Verify the LID is correct urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucy_mission_info In the 2023.05 review, many collection.xml had a lid_reference to urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document:lucymissioninfo lralph_ssr.xml - bug: Lucy Ralph Linear Etalon Imaging Spectral Array (LEISA) urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument:lucy.leisa Lucy Ralph Multispectral Visible Imaging Camera (MVIC) urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument:lucy.leisa Presumably, the second should be urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument:lucy.mvic Global Liens ============ issue: There are no subdirectory structure, with all products placed at the root of the collection directories. --> TB: Strongly suggest adding some structure for the user that may browse the collection, so as to not overwhelm them with number of files, perhaps unrelated, mixed together. issue: Label Context Reference Mismatch --> The 'name' values associated with internal references to context objects do not match the Context_Area.*.name values as found in the context object file referenced. For targets, it is probably fine to be different if it conforms to SBN formatting. Many of these context files were provided by the Lucy mission, and so it is expected to match. Note, usages are not consistent across all bundles or even files within a bundle or collection (correct in some labels, not in others). Those unique to a particular bundle will be mentioned with that bundle. Lastly, please note that the PDS validate tool will identify all instances of these if you need a complete list of what and where. Examples common across all bundles: --> --> "Lucy Mission" vs "Lucy" (urn:nasa:pds:context:investigation:mission.lucy) --> --> "Lucy Spacecraft" vs "Lucy" (urn:nasa:pds:context:instrument_host:spacecraft.lucy) --> --> "Dinkinesh" or "DINKINESH" vs "(152830) Dinkinesh" (urn:nasa:pds:context:target:asteroid.152830_dinkinesh) issue: Copies of published papers in PDS --> Identification_Area.Citation_Information.doi should not be for the published paper. PDS should never produce a DOI for a paper primarly published elsewhere. --> Add to the Identification_Area.Citation_Information.description the fact these papers of exact copy of open access documents. --> Add to the an to the published paper and add a description mentioning the relation between the PDS copy and the publish copy. Ex: "Original published source of this Open Access document." --> For any other label referencing these PDS copies in their Reference_List, we should include the external paper doi reference along side the internal reference to the internal copy. issue: Reference_List references missing or , or not being necessary. --> Whenever you reference a paper in a data product, please add a (for external_reference) or (for internal_reference) stating very briefly why this paper is being referenced. This can be as simple as saying it is the "SSR paper" or "description of the mission". An example is where the Calibration paper is being referenced; we should add a Calibration paper. For internal references to data products, usually the is clear enough, but this is not the case when referencing documents. If the referenced paper is not considered essential to either understanding or using the product, it should not be referenced. --> --> Example: lucy.leisa/data_dinkinesh_calibrated/lei_0752129330_02298_sci_04.xml (lines 1042-1049, two references) issue: Mission Phase --> Is the mission_phase_name keyword going to be in any of the labels? Suggest adding this to the Lucy LDD, with a standard list of values to validate against. You can use the New Horizons LDD (nh:mission_phase_name) as an example. issue: Adding sb:Calibration_Information --> For the calibrated products, I see that the Reference_List includes the data_to_raw/calibration_product. You can also add this information, plus additional information for the user to the "sb:Calibration_Information". I would highly highly encourage this. files: '*/bundle.xml' --> Suggest removing PDS4 jargon, "Bundle", from Identification_Area.title and replace with "Archive" or something similar. --> Suggest clarifying in the Identification_Area.Citation_Information.description that there are more than just "data products" in these bundles. There are also document products for instance; also Calibration products, though this is a usually a data product of one sort or another. --> Why does each bundle (except mission and rss) have a Reference_List that includes the mission:document, [instrument]:document (which is found within the bundle), and [instrument] SSR paper (found within the bundle)? Are these necessary for the generation of the bundle? If so, why are they not included in the collection.xml files? files: '*/*/collection.xml' --> For the Identification_Area and Citation_Information sub-area, we take these values as what we would want to use for reference and citation information for the PDS product (collection in this case), like titles, authors, editors, and abstract (pds:description). We use these to populate DOI meta data, for assigned DOIs. Please have these values reflect what you would want to see in the DOI meta data, and by consequence at the ADS. --> --> Note that first occurrences of acronyms will be spelled out with the acronym being in parentheses. Ex: "L'LORRI" => "Lucy LOng Range Reconnaissance Imager (L'LORRI)". I would recommend doing this in your bundle/collection labels, in the abstract (pds:description) and/or title. --> Suggest removing PDS4 jargon, "Collection", from Identification_Area.title --> Strongly (on verge of requiring for active missions) suggest adding Funding_Acknowledgement to Identification_Area.Citation_Information. --> entries are not consistent. Please confirm these are correct. In general there is an internal reference to a copy of Levison et al. (2021) paper and an internal reference to the instrument SIS. Exceptions noted below: --> --> urn:nasa:pds:lucy.llorri:calibration::1.0 (only lists SIS) --> --> urn:nasa:pds:lucy.ltes:document::1.0 lists the instrument SSR paper as well --> --> urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mvic:document::1.0 lists the instrument SSR paper as well --> --> urn:nasa:pds:lucy.mission:document::1.0 lists no references (probably correct) --> Please add to the Reference_List an internal link to the collection_overview product. files: '*/readme.txt' --> At the end of this file it suggests questions can go to "https://pds-smallbodies.astro.umd.edu/about/contact_info.shtml or pds-operator@jpl.nasa.gov". Using this url and/or email sounds like a bad idea. SBN website may move, or the pds-operator may change address. Remove contact info.