--- a/model/ProvenanceModel.html	Fri Sep 23 14:01:02 2011 +0100
+++ b/model/ProvenanceModel.html	Fri Sep 23 14:17:23 2011 +0100
@@ -227,8 +227,6 @@
 
 
 
-<div class='resolved'>Data model vs Language. Misc comments raised at <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/62">ISSUE-62</a></div>
-
 <div class='pending'>Formalism used is not explained, not applied to concepts <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/87">ISSUE-87</a>.</div>
 
 
@@ -304,17 +302,6 @@
 
   <img src="overview.png" align="center"/>
 
-<div class="note">Khalid's note CHECK:  I note that an instance of Entity can be generated at most once by an 
-instance of ProcessExecution. I was always assuming that this hold. I am 
-no longer sure. To illustrate my doubt, consider the execution of a 
-workflow wf1, denoted by the process execution pe0, and consider the 
-process execution pe1 corresponding to the last activity actn in the 
-workflow wf1. Now, assume that pe1 generated an entity e. given the 
-relation between wf1 and actn, it follows that pe0 also generates e. (We 
-came across this in the example Taverna workflow that is being encoded 
-by Stian in the OWL provenance ontology).  </div>
-
-
 <p/>The model includes the following fundamental types:
 <ul>
   <li>An instance of an <strong>Entity</strong> is a representation of a <em>characterized thing</em>, as defined informally above.</li> The specific nature of an entity is specified by means of a set of <strong>characterizing attributes</strong>. The
@@ -1159,15 +1146,6 @@
 attributes of the entity expression identified by <span class="name">e1</span>.</a> [<a
   href="../ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#PROV:0007">PROV:0007</a>] </div>
 
-<div class='note'>Should this dependency of attributes be made explicit as argument of the derivation expression? By making it explicit, we would allow someone to verify the validity of the derivation expression.<br/>
-Khalid's note: I was thinking of adding derivation-qualifier to wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1), 
-but instead of being a set of attribute-value, it can be specified by a 
-set of pair s of the form <b,B>, where b is a characterizing attribute 
-of e2 and B is the set of characterizing attributes of e1 that were used 
-to compute the value of b.<br/>Paolo: while keeping the mapping around may be a good idea, syntactically this seems to break the regular structure of attribute-value pairs. Maybe this requires one to think of a more general map data structure?
-</div>
-
-
 
 <div class='constraint' id='derivation-use-generation-ordering'><a name="PIL:0008">Given a process execution expression identified by <span class="name">pe</span>, entity expressions identified by <span class="name">e1</span> and <span class="name">e2</span>, qualifiers <span class="name">q1</span> and <span class="name">q2</span>, <span class='conditional'>if</span> the assertion <span class="name">wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,pe,q2,q1)</span>
 or <span class="name">wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1)</span> holds, <span class='conditional'>then</span>