--- a/model/satya-comments-issue-100.txt	Fri Oct 07 10:19:09 2011 +0200
+++ b/model/satya-comments-issue-100.txt	Fri Oct 07 11:38:08 2011 +0100
@@ -66,6 +66,24 @@
 PM there is a hidden issue here though: how do we get agreement on event ordering? isn't this a way to sweep agreement on time under the rug?
 I am not competent enough to see this through I'm afraid but I see this will creep back up on us
 
+Luc: The reference to Lamport is crucial here.  There is ordering in
+distributed systems because the receipt of a message always follows
+its sending.
+
+  We have extended that to: the use of an entity, follows its
+  generation.  And, the end of a PE follows its start.  All event
+  ordering constraints build on those two.
+
+Luc: it would be good to identify the events that delimit a characterization interval.
+  I don't think we have a precise answer for that.
+  Start would be a generation event.
+  End could be the generation of a new entity  luc, age=10  terminates luc, age=9
+  End could be the destructive consumption of an entity: egg broken to make a cake
+
+Luc: events are not observable, but time is. Not global time, but local time, found
+on local clocks, more or leass synchronized.
+
+
 
   > 4. If an asserter wishes to characterize a thing with the same
   > attribute-value pairs over several intervals, then they are required
@@ -106,3 +124,4 @@
 PM see my earlier comment. Satya has a point when he says events are "surrogates for time". 
 Have no solution, but need more discussion goinf forward. This issue will continue
 
+Luc: I think that's the other way round. Observable time is an approximation for events.