SCR 3-1003 Vote Comments
ATM
Lyle Huber
Atmospheres votes Yes.
We concur with the changes suggested by Rings and also note one other typo: In section X.2, comform –> conform.
We also note that whether or not the “JPEG 2000 format offers a compression advantage over other formats” is entirely irrelevant. The issue for PDS is whether or not the format is acceptable, not to do a comparison with other compression schemes.
EN
Steve Hughes
The EN votes Yes.
We concur with the Geo assessment with Mitch’s suggested phrase change.
GEO
Susie Slavney
Geosciences votes yes. We agree with Mitch’s statement that the phrase “PDS strongly recommends that” should be changed to make the sentence a requirement, but our vote will still be yes whether the change is made or not.
Someone at the Imaging Node should run this by the HiRISE team to see if they will be able to comply with this new standard. Not necessarily by Friday, but certainly by Management Council.
IMG
Myche McAuley
Imaging Node votes Yes.
We also concur with Mitch’s (Rings Node) statement regarding requirements vs desirements and typos.
PPI
Todd King
PPI votes “no”.
The focus of this SCR is whether to permit JPEG 2000 formatted data to be archived in the PDS. It has not been demonstrated that the JPEG 2000 rises to the level of an acceptable archive format. It also has not been demonstrated that JPEG 2000 format offers a compression advantage over other formats. It is clear that the JPEG 2000 format does provide some utility (tiles and selective decompression) that other formats do not, but this is inconsequential to long term preservation. Its perfectly acceptable to provide JPEG 2000 (or any other format) data to the user. Its not acceptable to archive it.
When we get together for PDS’ 100 year re-union I’d like to see the PDS archive look like the pyramids, rather than Roman ruins.
Even so…. I have the following suggested change:
Impact Assessment: (3) NASAView will need… I thought I heard that if the OAL is modified, then NASAView will support the new format. Shouldn’t the existence of a compressed form be hidden behind the OAL layer? I recommend dropping (3) or replacing it with a statement that OAL will deliver uncompressed data (which is how I thought it worked).
RINGS
Mitch Gordon
Nice job. Rings votes yes with two comments.
- page 3, section X, paragraph 4, next to last sentence: binarry -> binary
- page 5, section X.3 paragraph 1,
In the sentence: “PDS strongly recommends that these two files have the same name but different extensions: …”
I’d prefer to see the phrase “PDS strongly recommends that” removed. I prefer requirements rather than recommendations.
RS
Dick Simpson
Radio Science votes “no” on the version presented for vote, but has submitted a revised version to Elizabeth which would be acceptable. The majority of changes are editorial including Mitch’s fixes, correction of other typos (the examples still show ENCODING_TYPE_VERSION_ID), an attempt to incorporate Todd’s concern about the NASAVIEW upgrade, reworking of the “binary wrapper” language, and an advisory to MC that review of compression and external format policies might be in order. There is also a request that X.1 be fleshed out, since that would provide some useful numbers on the effectiveness of JPEG2000 as a compression scheme. Myche McAuley may already have the data; if so, it’s just a matter of plugging it in. In v4, X.1 is content free, and we should be able to do better.