Here are my comments from the recent peer review held on 
January 15, 2003

In general:

The review web page should be updated to include names, emails, and 
affiliations of all participants.  A set of success criteria should 
be provided to the review panel prior to the review.  The review 
minutes should include an assessment from each panel member as to 
whether they believe the success criteria were met.  This should not 
necessarily mean that no liens were identified.  The review panel 
should be provided and status of existing liens, if there are any, 
prior to the review telecon.  All subsequent reviews should cover 
existing liens and the success criteria.

The things I found most pertinent from this review are below.

1.  Validation tools provided by PDS are not identifying structural 
and syntax errors.  PDS support is needed so that the CIRS team can 
rely on the tools to identify trivial errors before publishing a 
volume.

2.  PDS should take the action necessary to define how vanilla 
formatted files should be archived in the PDS.  If there is a way to 
label the files in a way that makes a vanilla file viewable in 
NASAview, the CIRS team should receive the label specification ASAP 
for their consideration to implement. 

PDS will most likely be faced with some kind of preservation task for 
the data in their system that cannot be accessed with the PDS tool 
NASAview.  This includes MOC, TES, and CIRS.  Perhaps the data could 
be placed into a spreadsheet format.

PDS format requirements need to be clear and concise when presented 
to archive developers.  It was believed that this issue was solved 
over a year ago so the reimergence was a surprise.

3.  Most of the processing software provided by CIRS is not readily 
useable and it would take a fair amount of effort to modify and 
document how to install and use it. Software, other than vanilla 
should be removed from the volume, or placed in the extras directory. 
In lieu of this software, some text algorithms that describe what may 
be done with the vanilla output to perform analysis would be helpful. 
Also, since the calibration concept is thoroughly documented it 
should not be a problem to remove the software from the volume.  We 
request a firm, written commitment from PDS that they will not later 
object to calibration software being removed from the software 
directory.

Mark (NMSU) should take a crack at making the software portable with 
minimal support from CIRS to answer questions.

4.  It should be assumed that the aareadme.txt file is the first file 
a user will read.  The file should introduce the contents of the 
volume and guide the user to the items they should look at first; 
like the SIS, and other documents.  Basically, instruct the user how 
you want them to go through the disk.

5.  I personally hate repetition, so if PDS wants descriptions & 
units for the fields stored in the format file, I propose CIRS do one 
of the following:
	Put a note in the FMT file pointing to the SIS.
or
	Put a copy of the fully documented FMT file in the SIS.

6.  CIRS needs to provide an error bar and random noise files so that 
the user can better understand how files are calibrated.

7.  A user cannot get wave number alone using vanilla.  Need 
algorithm/doc to describe how to extract wavelength and bin size or 
wave number and scale from vanilla file. (This may be related to #3 
above)

8.  Suggest providing example output files with vanilla examples and 
sample lines of code to convert data into appropriate units.  (This 
may be related to #3 above)

9.  Need noise equivalence spectral radiance files - essential piece of info.
(1 sig random noise level and a function of wave number for each 
spectral resolution.)

10.  PDS needs to provide in writing the official format description 
for DVDs.  We request a recommendation of media brand, writer 
hardware brand and software app.

11.  Calibration is still being refined.  Confidence level note 
should indicate a second release might be required once calibration 
issues are resolved.

12.  PDS needs to provide a software label specification.  Cassini 
will provide labels as instructed by the PDS.

13.  Comments from Lyle and Ron sometimes appear contradictory. Ron 
Joyner's comment 3(a) directly contradicts previous advice from Lyle 
Huber.  A single set of PDS recommendations is requested for this 
peer review and future peer reviews so that there is a single source 
of directions for the instrument team to follow.

14.  Previous peer review documentation should be made available if 
it exists to all participants prior to holding a peer review. 
Actions should be tracked in a spreadsheet friendly way, assigned 
priorities, person responsible for ensuring its resolution, and the 
final resolution action.

15.  What should go in the CALIB directory ?

16.  The CIRS team should send their REF.CAT to Diane Conner (project 
archive coordinator) for rework.

17.  The CIRS team should remove the TARGET.CAT file.  Target catalog 
information will be coordinated between the project archive 
coordinator and PDS.


--