RO-A-OSINAC/OSIWAC-5-LUTETIA-SHAPE-V1.0
=======================================
o  The dataset.cat has a typo in the radius of the third axis - should be 75,
   not 175 km
-- fixed

o  'plate_shape_definition.asc' refers to the wrong object (Tempel 1, not
   Lutetia).
-- Fixed

o  Include additional information about how the model was created (see Tom's
   slide 5).
Added what I could.

o  Need a better definition of how 'center' is defined/selected.
**********  Currently don't have any additional info

o  See Jian-Yang's presentation for a short list of minor documentation
   corrections (slide 22).
-- Fixed as noted below

o  If possible, add quality flags to the facet table.
**********  Currently don't have the needed info


JYL TYPOS

voldesc.cat:
* Typo: Line 27-29: Remove "\n" from line end
-- Fixed

document/plate_shape_definition.asc:
* Line 3: It has "Tempel 1" in it instead of "Lutetia"
-- Fixed

catalog/catinfo.txt
* Line 37, check consistency of file names: REFERENCE.CAT as in this file and
  references.cat (extra s) as in the directory 
-- Fixed

* Line 38: No personnel.cat file found in the directory
-- Added

catalog/dataset.cat:
* The dimensions are obviously wrong.  My calculation has A=111.3, B=121.1, C=84.8
  Discrepancy in area: 33331 in dataset.cat, and 33318 by myself
-- The numbers cited in the dataset.cat come from the paper cited in that
   file.  
   Possible sources of the discrepancy:
   1) the dimensions cited are the values along the principal axes of
      intertia, where Jianyang might have calculated them around the coordinate
      axes (?) which may not be the same.  
   2) Jianyang calculated them around the coordinate center, rather than the
      center of mass (offset a couple km)
   Also, A>B>C by definition, so there is something inconsistent with the
   values Jianyang got. 
   I don't currently have any way to calculate MOIs to check which is
   right, though it's on my list of things I'd like to develop.  If it is deemed
   important enough, I can work on it now.
   The discrepancy in the area is small and is likely due to the technique
   used to due the calculations.  I get 33331 by adding up all the areas of
   all the triangles, which agrees withe what is in the paper.
  -- This information comes from the published paper, and so I am inclined to
     leave the numbers as is.  I added the reference citation to the table
     header to make it clear. 

Documents
* Recommend expanding the documents to include 1) views from s/c at various
  times during the flyby and 2) standard view point with lat-lon grid overlain 
****** Don't have the geometry info for the s/c views
-- Standard views have been added 

Data:
* An obvious seam as Tony noticed.  Need documentation on it.
-- added a description and noted the cause of the seam and the holes.

* Related to the seam and "two methods used" mentioned in the dataset, it
  will be userful to document what method was used for what areas 
**********  Currently don't have any additional info