--- a/model/comments/issue-459-tim.txt	Tue Aug 07 11:20:16 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-459-tim.txt	Tue Aug 07 11:27:52 2012 +0100
@@ -625,6 +625,18 @@
    > 
    > 
    > 
+
+
+
+The text of the remark about wasDerivedFrom was rewritten as follows:
+
+A derivation wasDerivedFrom(id; e2,e1,a,gen,use,attrs) that specifies an activity explicitly indicates that this activity achieved the derivation, with a usage use of entity e1, and a generation gen of entity e2. It differs from a derivation of the form wasDerivedFrom(id; e2,e1,-,-,-,attrs) with missing activity, generation, and usage. In the latter form, it is not specified if one or more activities are involved in the derivation.
+
+Let us consider a system, in which a derivation is underpinned by multiple activities. Conceptually, one could also model such a system with a new activity that encompasses the two original activities and underpins the derivation. The infererences defined in this specification do not allow the latter modelling to be inferred from the former. Hence, the two modellings of the same system are regarded as different in the context of this specification.
+
+
+
+
    > 
    > 33)
    > 
@@ -811,6 +823,17 @@
    > "A derivation specifying activity, generation and use events is a
    > special case of a derivation that leaves these unspecified. (The
    > converse is not the case)."
+
+The text of the remark following inference 12 has been modified as follows:
+
+
+
+Inference 12 (derivation-use) allows "-" to be replaced by existential variables in a wasDerivedFrom, when an activity is explict, and a generation known.
+
+However, a derivation without explicit generation and usage cannot be normalized even when a generation and usage hold. IF wasDerivedFrom(id; e2,e1,a,-,-,attrs), wasGeneratedBy(gen; e2,a,_t2,_attrs2), and used(use; a,e1,_t1,[]), IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT wasDerivedFrom(id; e2,e1,a,gen,use,attrs). Indeed, e1 may be used multiple times by a, usage use may not be involved in the derivation (for instance, it may well have taken place after the generation of e2).
+
+Derivation is not defined to be transitive either. Applications may define specializations of this relation that are transitive.
+
    > 
    > 
    > 
@@ -955,7 +978,8 @@
    > 
 
 @Luc?
-
+Luc: given my time availability this week, I will leave all figure editing to later,
+possibly after LC publication
    > 
    > 54)
    > 
@@ -979,6 +1003,8 @@
    > 
 
 @Luc?
+Luc: given my time availability this week, I will leave all figure editing to later,
+possibly after LC publication
 
 
    >