Tag ops classes/attributes in IM so they are easily identifiable by users

[jordanpadams]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. From Joe M. at PPI:

I see that the look of the PDS4 Data Dictionary has been updated on the
EN website. In the new-look version I see that the ops stewarded product
classes are listed alongside the pds stewarded ones. Was this the case
in the previous implementation, it may be that I was just so used to it
that I ignored the ops classes? Is there something we can do to more
clearly distinguish the ops products from the pds one's? It may prevent
us from having some well meaning data provider submit a bunch of
products labeled as Product_Software, or some other non-archival product
type

Describe the solution you'd like @jshughes will discuss this with DDWG about adding some "tag" or explicit description to the ops classes/attributes so these can be separated out in the DD search / Information Specification.

[tloubrieu-jpl]

@jordanpadams this ticket is closed but I am not sure if it should be tested by I&T and if yes, how so ? Thanks

[jordanpadams]

@tloubrieu-jpl I have no idea :-) . @jshughes is there some way the I&T team can generate the appropriate documentation to test this?

[jshughes]

@jordanpadams @tloubrieu-jpl The request was to reorganize the PDS4 Data Dictionary so that the “ops” stewarded items in the common “pds” namespace were more “easily” identified. Prior to this change these items could identified by the label “Steward: ops” in the item’s description.

Since no guidance was provided, the solution chosen was to group all “ops” stewarded items into one section in the document. This was easily accomplished since the ”PDS3 catalog classes” section already included a subset of the “ops” items. To resolve the issue, the ”PDS3 catalog classes” section was renamed to “OPS catalog classes in the common namespace” and all “ops” items were moved to the renamed section.

To test this change, the tester should check if the “OPS catalog” section contains only “ops” classes. A more extensive test would check to see if any “ops” classes existed outside of the “OPS catalog” section.

Note that the "ops" attributes were not moved to a separate section. This seemed peripheral since the request focused on "ops" Product Classes, attributes are referenced directly by their classes so there is little chance of confusion, and this would have required a new section which further complicates the document.

[jordanpadams]

@jshughes that sounds great. Do we have docs somewhere so the I&T team can actually generate and see these docs to verify this works? If not, don't worry about that right now. We can add that as a task for next build.

[jshughes]

@jordanpadams The affected document is the PDS4 Data Dictionary Document, all three versions. (html, pdf, and webhelp).

Prior to the change the section "PDS3 catalog classes in the common namespace" was a small section with only a few classes. For example the OPS class Ingest_LDD was not included. See https://pds.nasa.gov/datastandards/documents/dd/current/PDS4_PDS_DD_1H00.html.

For the change, the name of this section was changed to "OPS catalog classes in the common namespace." and it now contains all OPS classes, including Ingest_LDD.

The regeneration of any version of this document requires that the generated file, PDS4_PDS_DD_1I00.xml, be loaded into Oxygen and the use of the Configure Transformation Scenarios (e.g. DocBook HTML). (wrench icon in the ribbon menu)

This change did not affect the PDS4 Information Model Specification. The operational classes were already in their own section, Operational Components.