L'Ralph MVIC 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. Documentation ============= --> Many documents’ labels contain a description of the mission and instrument that needs to be updated with appropriate tense and necessary details. "will be located" >> "are located". file: document/mvic_sis.pdf --> 2.3.2.2 Calibrated Data: --> --> units (radiance) are written differently from that described in 2.2 (radiance / (counts/sec)) --> --> Better to explain the associated FITS structure (dimensions, etc.) first in the calibration steps. --> --> Better to add header keywords for TDI records (M4TDIx) in Step 4a. --> 2.3.4: --> --> 2nd & 3rd lines: redundant expression --> --> 2.3.4.1: missing acronym “SCLK” --> FITS Keyword (Page 20): DATE. Does ISO cal mean ISOT format? --> Table of Contents: Page number is a mixture of Romans and Italics. --> Missing acronyms: GSFC (p.7) --> Figure 2-2: --> --> Remove Figure 3-1 text in the figure --> --> What does “R/Y” stand for? file: document/LRalph_MVIC_Activities.pdf --> For the Dinkinesh flyby, would it be possible to provide the region of saturation (at least approximately)? file: document/LRalph_MVIC_Calibration_Procedure.pdf --> Page 1 Line 6: Pan’s wavelength range is slightly different from the one specified in Table 2-1 of mvic_sis.pdf. --> ATsum, XTsum: using more specific keywords regarding “actual” (not “planned”, as the headers have both) summing or at least mentioning this point. --> Page 3: How can we get the coefficient information? 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. Please clarify or correct this whole paragraph. Suggestions --> Add the table 2-1 a list of MVIC Channels to the Calibration description --> Make it clear in the description that which values are in the extensions “dark subtraction data” and “radiometric coefficients” Data ==== data_Dinkinesh_calibrated/ --> give unit information in the sci images, as in the overview.txt of data_Dinkinesh_raw. --> No error array and quality array found. Suggest adding same extension as lorri: Error ImageHDU, QUALITY FLAG IMAGE, if possible. --> The version number should be related to the pipeline version, I don’t see any pipeline changes between these two versions, why is the later image is v3 but the earlier ones are v4? --> According to the data label, all data should be v1, and v3/4 are internal versions. This is confusing. Labels ====== --> 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: --> --> '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. issue: Image orientation --> Highly recommend adding the Display_2D_Image (or disp:Display_Settings) for the 'calibration/*.xml' files to make it explicity clear how the bytes are being read and where (0,0) is; currently no where is this defined, and so assumed. files: 'calibration/*.xml' (data products) --> Should any of these data objects have units? I don't see any specified. files: 'data_dinkinesh_calibrated/lei*.xml' --> Should the Array_3D_Image, Array_3D, and Array_2D objects have a unit? The raw data specifies in the label "DN" as expected. --> For the second extension "background", should this be a 3D_Array_Image instead of 3D_Array? EN Review ========= lucy.mvic:calibration *.xml - Suggestion: to match the context products, change MVIC Space Stare Lucy Mission Lucy Spacecraft to Lucy Ralph Multispectral Visible Imaging Camera (MVIC) 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 lucy.mvic:data_dinkinesh_calibrated *.xml - Suggestion: to match the context products, change DINKINESH Lucy Mission Lucy Spacecraft to (152830) Dinkinesh 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 lucy.mvic:data_dinkinesh_raw *.xml - Suggestion: to match the context products, change DINKINESH Lucy Mission Lucy Spacecraft to (152830) Dinkinesh 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 lucy.mvic:document *.xml - Suggestion: to match the context products, change DINKINESH Lucy Mission Lucy Spacecraft to (152830) Dinkinesh 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 - Suggestion: add lid_reference to target 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.