The following notes were taken by Elizabeth Rye.  Corrections are
Planetary Data System Standards Teleconference
14 September 2005     9-11 AM


Patty Garcia (IMG)
Lyle Huber (ATM)
Chris Isbell (IMG)
Steve Joy (PPI)
Ron Joyner (EN)
Todd King (PPI)
Sue LaVoie (IMG)
Anne Raugh (SBN)
Elizabeth Rye (EN)
Dan Scholes (GEO)
Susie Slavney (GEO)
Betty Sword (EN)

3-1006 (Directory Naming Conventions)

This SCR has been approved by the Management Council.  7 "yes" votes,
0 "no" votes, 
and 2 nodes that didn't register a vote.
3-1054 (Use of Externally Maintained Formats in PDS Archives)

Anne pointed out that "format" should be "standard".

It was pointed out that this issue is a "policy", not a "standard".

Drop historical approach in opening paragraph.

On point two of the "rules", suggest that the software_version_id and
encoding_type keywords are appropriate places for including the
version information.

On point three, change the first sentence to indicate that the PDS
"must have a copy of the standard".  (There was some discussion about
whether or not this should be true for standards maintained by
national or international standards bodies, but the consensus was that
the PDS should still have a copy.)  In the second sentence, "if
practical" is relatively meaningless; change to "documentation may be
included in the archive".

On point four, need language stating that output from conversion
software must be in standard PDS format.

Need a statement somewhere clarifying that all new formats must be
approved by the PDS before they're included in an archive.

Discussion broke down before points five and six were fully discussed.
Concerns were raised about where and how to draw the line between
acceptable and unacceptable formats.  For example, where is the line
in the spectrum between VICAR and HDF?  People asked for more time to
mull this over and we moved on to the next SCR.
3-1055 (Use of Compression in PDS Archives)

Like SCR 3-1054, this was deemed to be a policy, rather than a

"[V]ery large and infrequently used data" was not considered a
legitimate reason for compression.  Rye wants feedback from the
curators of such data sets, namely Simpson and Acton.

Wording of point 3 about candidates for compression ("processed data
where the source product is readily available") was deemed confusing.

Point 3 on rules for compression to be modified so that algorithms are
required for inclusion in the archive, and source code and executables
are required for delivery at the time that the archive is delivered
(but not required for inclusion in the archive).  The distinction here
is that the algorithms exist for the sake of the long term user of the
data, while the source code and executables exist for the convenience
of the current user, but will require increasing amounts of work to
use as time goes on.

A fifth point should be added (perhaps listed first) that compression
formats must be approved for use by the PDS before they are included
in an archive.