Notes on 67/P Shape Model Review
Chuck Acton   29 January 2016

Acton only read documentation: I did not examine the actual data.

All of these comments are suggestions: none would prevent accepting the
archive.


1) The SBN's "How to Approach a PDS Data Set"
(http://pdssbn.astro.umd.edu/howto/understand.shtml) is useful stuff.

2) General comment.  I think all the needed info is available, but it is
scattered throughout multiple documents such that it is difficult for
someone not already familiar with Rosetta shape model work to get their
hands around it. Probably this is due in part to the fact that multiple
people wrote the different parts of documentation. See comments along this
line below.

3)  The aareadme.txt makes reference to:

   DSK
   PLATE model
   SHAP2

without providing any idea of what these refer to.
Perhaps this is consistent with normal PDS standards for an aareadme--one
has to look elsewhere for such definitions.

4) The document named "shap2_model_info.asc" seems to be a/the primary
overview document.  It could be improved.

  - The title at the top says "SPC versions of the
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko nucleus shape model."   This use of "SPC" seems
to refer to both SPC and MSPCD as used later in the document. Which
interpretation of "SPC" is correct?

  - The title at the top says "SPC versions of the
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko nucleus shape model." Yet a bit later on there
is a section heading saying "SHAP2 Version of the model" followed by text
saying "The SHAP2 models represent..."   So how does "SPC versions" relate
to "SHAP2 Version" and "SHAP2 models"?  There seems a lack of consistency
in nomenclature.

  - This document uses the term "SHAP2" without saying what that means.
Yes, elsewhere one can discern that "SHAP2" seems to refer to an archiving
period or instance... the first one attempted.  Why not make that clear in
this document.

5) Regarding "rmoc_eaicd.pdf"

Overall I find this difficult to read, in part because a good deal of
terminology used at the beginning is (somewhat) explained only at the end.

The document refers the reader to "main EAICD file."  Not clear that this
is included in this dataset, or where to find it.

The descriptions of the ROS, WRL, OBJ and STL formats are very sparse.
(Maybe more is said elsewhere?)

The are a number of (small) grammatical issues that could be cleaned up.

6) The partial names "RMOC" and "ESA" seem to be used interchangeably at
different points in the collection. Either explain these are the same or
change to achieve consistency.

7) voldesc.cat
Under Description, change "... will hold..." to "... holds..."