From: Shawn Brooks [sbrooks@sp18.jpl.nasa.gov]

In general, I think that the archive of the 28 Sagitarii

occultation data is very good. The archive is well laid out and

logically organized. The consistency of the files generated from

each of the six observations, in general, is an asset. And, the

fact that the most important of these files are in ASCII format

(all but the BROWSE files) insures that they are readily and

easily readable. Given that the raw data and calibration data are

unavailable, one has to assume that all of the resampling and

processing of the occultation profiles was done consistently and

well enough that no artifacts have been introduced. Perhaps it is

just a personal preference, but I do like having access to the raw

data. However, no problems associated with the processing of the

products available in this archive are apparent and there are no

major changes that I would suggest.

BROWSE directory:

Within the 'BROWINFO.TXT' file under the 'BROWSE' directory, the

line:

"Within the plot horizontal dashed lines indicate the values of zero optical (top) and tau_max (near the bottom)."

should be replaced with the following text:

"Within the plot horizontal dashed lines indicate the values of zero optical depth (top) and tau_max (near the bottom)."

Done.

This text is located near line 109. I also was unclear about the

difference between the "computed tabulated points" and the "fitted

values", as discussed under the heading "Description of the plots

of ancillary geometry information", but this just may be my own

ignorance. Which of these two is provided in the 'GEOMETRY'

files?

DATA directory:

The files have been set up with an eye to consistency from

observation to observation and I think this is a strength.

However, instances where this consistency is lacking can be

frustrating. One example of this has to do with the ESO 1-meter

and ESO 2.2-meter data. I really believe that it would be helpful

if the ESO data also contained seven columns of numbers, as do the

data for the other four observations. One can argue that only

three columns are necessary since none of the data are 'good' (see

below) and the other four columns are inapplicable, but I think it

would be helpful if four columns of dummy values were included. I

wrote a short code to read in these data, but, since the

formatting on these two data sets are different from the other

four, different code must be written to examine these data. I

suppose the user could add in four dummy value columns on his end,

but re-formatting the archive files as such would be in keeping

with the consistency of the archive as a whole.

Done.

It might also be helpful if the explanation of the data quality

flag was a little more specific. In particular, I found myself

wondering what the difference is between the 'bad' and 'non-

photometric' flags.

Replaced ‘bad data’ with ‘corrupted data’

GEOMETRY directory:

I also found myself curious as to why there is no geometry

information associated with LICK 1-meter observations included in

the archive. If an explanation of this is included within the

data archive, I could not find it.

The data providers did not have geometry information for the Lick observations nor sufficient information to be able to generate the data.

AAREADME.TXT file:

In section 3.1 of the AAREADME.TXT file, it might make sense to

mention the *.DAT and *.OUT files among the various ASCII files

contained within the data archive.

Done.

In section 4.1 of the AAREADME.TXT file, the file names under the

DATA, GEOMETRY and BROWSE subdirectories are described as such:

"In the subdirectories of the DATA, GEOMETRY, and BROWSE directories, filenames are in the form: AAA_BCD.XXX where

AAA is a three letter identifier for the observatory,

B is either E (egress) or I (ingress)

C is either G (geometry) or P (profile)

D is either B (browse), D (data), or G (geometry)

XXX is PDF (PDF file), PS (Post Script file), TAB (PDS table file)

or LBL (PDS label file)."

However, I could find no cases among the files in these

subdirectories where D = G. Maybe this line should be changed to

read "D is either B (browse) or D (data)."

The “G” files are in the GEOMETRY subdirectories.

Within the 'AAREADME.TXT' file and in the 'INDXINFO.TXT' file in

the 'INDEX' subdirectory, the individual index files are all

described as being of the form "AAA_INDEX.TAB", whereas they are

actually of the form AAAINDEX.TAB. It's not terribly important,

but maybe warrants a change.

Corrected the file names.

This data archive has, in general, been assembled quite well. The

information necessary to interpret and analyze these data have

been included and, more importantly, are placed logically. The

data set is not a terribly complex one and should be simple for

any scientist to use.