The following notes were taken by Elizabeth Rye. Corrections are welcome.
(01/10/08 - Corrected C. Neese's name.)
Planetary Data System Standards Teleconference
14 November 2007 9-11 AM
Announcements:
None
Telecon Discussions:
1. SCR status:
- SCR 3-1118: Add ICD, SISes to Volume Documentation in StdRef
WG: E. Rye (lead), R. Joyner, S. Slavney
- discussion ongoing; not ready for presentation to Tech Group
- SCR 3-1119: Distinguish Required and Optional keywords vs. Projection in IMAGE_MAP_PROJECTION
WG: C. Isbell (lead), E. Rye, P. Garcia, M. Cayanan
- C. Isbell is gathering info on map projections
- SCR 3-1123: Correct UNIT_ID value for SC_TARGET_VELOCITY_VECTOR
WG: E. Rye (lead), A. Raugh, R. Joyner
- D. Simpson has written up the SCR and submitted it to the Tech Group.
- Before voting, we held a discussion on tightening up voting procedures. We've been conducting votes permitting four options ("yes to MC", "yes direct implementation", "no", and "abstain"). This allows for the ambiguous case where a majority of nodes vote to approve an SCR but no single option receives a clear majority of votes. Two suggestions for dealing with this were 1) to hold two separate votes, one on approval of the SCR, and the second to determine what to do with the SCR if it's approved and 2) to drop "yes direct implementation" votes down to "yes to MC" if no clear majority was obtained. Given that D. Simpson had pointed out to E. Rye that the Standards Process as approved by the MC currently indicates a two-step process (see the flowchart), it was determined that we will try this method for now. (If it proves cumbersome, we can always update the process later.) For votes conducted via telecon, the two votes will be held sequentially. For email / web votes, the two questions will both appear on the same "ballot". (Note from E. Rye that this latter approach will require some modification to the online voting interface.)
- After the above discussion, two votes were conducted on this SCR, the first to determine if the SCR was approved, and the second to determine what action to take with the SCR:
Node Voter Approve? Direct to
Implementation?ATM L. Huber yes yes GEO S. Slavney yes yes IMG P. Garcia yes yes NAIF B. Semenov yes yes PPI T. King yes yes RINGS M. Gordon yes yes RS D. Simpson yes yes SBN A. Raugh yes (need to add
quotes around unit)yes EN E. Rye yes yes Both votes passed and the SCR is now "TG_APPROVED".
- SCR 3-1124: PSDD Enhancement -- add Case to keywords of type CHARACTER
WG: R. Joyner (lead), T. King, R. Simpson, M. Cayanan
- no update
- SCR 3-1126: Multiple occurences of the same keyword in an object - Valid or Not?
WG: A. Raugh (lead), M. Cayanan, L. Huber, S. Hughes, T. King, D. Simpson
- no update
- SCR 3-1127: Pointer/Object Ambiguity in the Standards Reference
WG: A. Raugh (lead), M. Cayanan, L. Huber, S. Hughes, R. Joyner
- no update
- SCR 3-1128: Add new keyword BROWSE_USAGE_TYPE
WG: E. Guinness (lead), S. Adams, R. Joyner
- E. Rye reported that the SCR had passed with five yes votes (all for direct to implementation), three no votes, and one abstention.
- Given the large number of comments, E. Rye recommended that working group read through them and determine if any further actions should be taken. GEO dissented, saying that a vote is a vote and this one has passed.
- E. Rye then recommended that those nodes that have expressed concerns about the SCR (with RINGS being the node most directly affected) will have to take the lead on determining whether or not to submit a follow-up SCR to make modifications to the keyword.
- This SCR now has a status of "TG_APPROVED".
2. Discuss the use of .FIT as a file extension for FITS products (A. Raugh and others) (26:40)
- Issue is that R. Alanis has a mission that wishes to archive FITS formatted data products using a .FIT extension and is looking for guidance on whether or not this is permitted. E. Rye noted that this is an issue where different nodes have had different interpretations of the standards in the past, resulting in the current confusion. Both ATM and SBN have been using this file extension for years. After finding nothing in the Standards Reference to prohibit such a usage, and talking to P. Ramirez and M. Cayanan about any potential software issues (of which they could see none), E. Rye said she had no objections to the use of this extension, but would like to see it added to the list of reserved file extensions in Table 10.1 of the Standards Reference. T. King also wanted it added to this list.
- B. Sword raised concerns about problems she was having with a particular FITS file from this mission where the TABLE portion of the file was not displaying properly in NASAView. R. Alanis noted that he had successfully displayed IMAGE data from the file (albeit all dark). It was noted that a potential problem with the TABLE data is the use in the TABLE object description of the INTEGER data type, rather than the ASCII_INTEGER data type.
- R. Alanis will send a sample data file and the SIS to A. Raugh who will investigate and determine if whether the problem lies in the data file or the tools. She will recommend an action based on her findings.
- E. Rye will submit a new SCR to add the two file extensions .FIT and .FTS to Table 10.1 of the Standards Reference. C. Neese and B. Sword were added to the working group.
Next telecon scheduled for 2007-11-28. (44:33)
Meeting ended at 45:40.