InSight Cameras Peer Review

Overview

The Planetary Data System requires a proposed archive to pass a peer review before it can be archived. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the data set is scientifically useful, well documented, and accessible to scientists. PDS is conducting this review of the InSight Cameras Data Product according to the customary procedure for mission-generated collections that are delivered over time. Before data acquisition begins, the design of the data products is reviewed as demonstrated in a Software Interface Specification (SIS) document and a simulated sample product. Then, when actual data are delivered, they are checked to ensure that they comply with the design specified in the SIS.

As a reviewer of the InSight Cameras Data Products, you are asked to begin by reviewing the SIS documents, particularly the Cameras SIS or the Bundle SIS, as if you were preparing to use the data in your research. Then, please browse through the archive to review its contents. Click here to see an overview of the bundle contents, to help you navigate through your review.

Below is a list of suggested review criteria. Feel free to comment on any aspect of the archive, tools, and documentation. If a criterion is not your area of expertise, you do not have to comment on it.

• Are the data products described scientifically useful?
• Do the proposed labels properly describe the data files?
• Is the documentation complete and accurate?
• Do you have any recommendations with regard to data format, organization, label content, etc., that differ from the proposed data products?
• Does the data set meet PDS4 standards?

NOTE: Please read through the Liens list prior to beginning your review. These are a set of items in development with an accompanying rationale.

See the Help section below for more additional information on the peer review process, PDS4, and other FAQs.

Please email your comments to Cristina De Cesare by Friday, August 31, 2018. Be as specific as you can in order to help the data providers improve the data set. Thank you for participating in the InSight Cameras Peer Review.

Materials

• Review Comments Spreadsheet - please use this spreadsheet to specify all of your review comments. It is broken out into 4 worksheets:
  • Bundle SIS - InSight Bundle SIS comments
  • Camera SIS - InSIght Cameras SIS comments
  • Data Products - comments specific to the data products themselves
  • Other - any other comments that don't appear to fit into the categories above
• Data and Data Dictionaries
  • InSight Cameras Archive Bundle (online) (tar.gz) (zip) - Formerly known as the volume or data set, the archive bundle contains all of the documentation and sample products applicable to this review.
  • Corrected mesh data (added 2018-Aug-24) (online) (tar.gz)- The data provider has released corrected mesh data to address two liens. Please download the corrected meshes.
  • PDS4 Data Dictionaries - the XML Schema documents that define the PDS4 labels that describe the data. The dictionaries used are available in the sample archive bundle and online at the PDS Engineering Node:
    • PDS Master v1.10.1.0 (xsd) (sch)
    • Imaging (IMG) v1.10.1.0 (xsd) (sch)
    • Cartography v1.10.1.0 (xsd) (sch) - development version
    • Geometry v1.10.1.0 (xsd) (sch)
    • Display v1.9.0.0 (xsd) (sch)
    • Processing Information v1.9.0.0 (xsd) (sch)
    • Mission (MSN) v1.10.1.0 (xsd) (sch)
    • Surface Mission (MSN_SURFACE) v1.10.1.0 (xsd) (sch)
    • Surface Imaging (IMG_SURFACE) v1.10.1.0 (xsd) (sch) - development version
    • InSight v1.8.4.0 (xsd) (sch) - under review
• Tools for:
  • Validating the Data
  • Inspecting the Products
  • Viewing the Images

Help

Here are some resources with additional information about the peer review process, please follow the following links for additional information:

• Peer Review Help on Imaging Node Web Site - helps answer questions like:
  • What is PDS4?
  • How can I validate the data?
  • How can I view the PDS4 labels?
  • How can I view the images?

• Peer Review Help on Geoscience Node Web Site - helps answer questions like:
  • What is the peer review process?
  • What do we need from reviewers?

Schedule

Liens

This section will briefly describe some of the known issues and/or items still to be determined regarding the InSight cameras archive and the PDS4 Information Model. If any of these are a concern, please raise them in your peer review comments.

• While technically a delta peer review, things have changed so much since the initial (pre-bathtub) PR in all areas that this should be considered a full peer review.
  
  
• The keyword table in the SIS Appendix D is incomplete. It is automatically generated from the data dictionaries, DD property maps, and sample labels. There are some issues in this process that are still being worked out. The format of the table is complete, and the contents of entries that are there are valid for review, but the table is incomplete, both in the sense of entirely missing entries, and missing VICAR keywords, xpath's, or other values for entries that are there. Updates to the table may be provided during the review period.
  
  
• This is a large, complex, and new system. Some bugs, minor errors, and deficiencies, both in the labels themselves and the data dictionaries, will be corrected as found, even after the Peer Review completes. This could include adding an attribute to some classes. Anything that substantively changes the archive will be reviewed through PDS, but not minor fixes. All such minor fixes will be complete before landing (so the data set is consistent throughout the mission) - any changes needed after landing will go through the appropriate review/approval process.
  
  
• This Project is considering adding one specific new instrument placement product - a measurement of roughness around the WTS skirt. A decision has not yet been made, nor has it been implemented or even defined yet. If this product is added, it will be included in the archive without additional review. It will be fully documented in the SIS as with all the other placement products, and will conform generally to the conventions established by the other placement products.
  
  
• There are two kinds of products, the lander-frame instrument tilt (UPH, UPS, UPW) and position (XPH, XPS, XPW) that were implemented too late to generate sample products. They are described fully in the SIS.
  
  
• The filenames for the sample mosaics are inconsistent in their use of the Epoch field. Some are marked "T" (testbed) and others "_" (ORT). This is as a result of a late clarification on the use of Epoch. The SIS describes the field properly.
  
  
• The provided calibration files are samples only. The set of calibration files being provided is fully described in the SIS, but the specific files may vary in the actual archive. The values in the sample calibration files are also preliminary, based on testbed calibrations, and many of them will change once the flight calibration is completed.
  
  
• The terrain mesh examples use RAD products as the mesh skin, instead of CWG as recommended in the SIS. Both are valid meshes; the switch to using CWG as the default pipeline product came too late to regenerate the peer review samples.
  
  
• The sample data provided is from sols 3, 4, and 5 of ORT-9. No uncompressed images were taken during this test, so there are no uncompressed EDR's in the sample data. Sol 5 should be the primary location to examine as it contains all data types including meshes and mosaics. Sols 3 and 4, while they do contain correct data, are included mainly to show how multiple sols work.
  
  
• There is a lot of commonality in imagers across the Mars surface missions - InSight, Mars 2020, MSL, MER, and several PDART tasks which use data from these missions. The msn, msn_surface, and img_surface dictionaries facilitate the reuse of labels across missions, in order to avoid balkanization of these missions by repeating common elements in mission-specific dictionaries.
  
  
• The OBJ files technically violate the OBJ spec, although they load fine in Meshlab in most tools. This will be fixed before archive. Current syntax adds an extra slash to the "f" lines: "f v/vt//"; correct is "f v/vt/".This lien has been corrected as of 8/24/18.
  
  
• The provided labels have "debug" comments turned on. These are XML comments before most (but not all) attributes that name the VICAR keyword from which the PDS4 information is derived. These comments are easily turned off with a switch. We actively solicit input from the peer reviewers on whether these comments are useful or distracting - should we include them in the final archive or turn them off?
  
  
• There are two validation problems with the OBJ meshes. In the first, the table description for the first field of the line (e.g. The "vt" tag) is incorrectly tagged as ASCII_Integer rather than ASCII_Short_String_Collapsed. In the second, the validator complains about geom:Coordinate_Space_Reference not being found. Even though that item is in the geom dictionary, apparently it must be referred to by img_surface. Both will be fixed before archive and will likely be fixed in time to issue corrected data during the review period.This lien has been corrected as of 8/24/18.
  
  

Reviewers and Other Personnel

Review Coordinator

Reviewers

Data Providers

Observers

Last updated Tuesday July 3, 2018 12:35 PM