--- a/model/comments/issue-459-paul.txt	Thu Aug 30 19:01:02 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-459-paul.txt	Thu Aug 30 19:14:34 2012 +0100
@@ -22,9 +22,6 @@
 
 I made this appendix non-normative. This allows us to do it later.
 
-@James: OK?
--- Yes, I'd stated appendices are non-normative in the compliance, but
-doesn't hurt to restate.  -- JRC.
 
 
    > 
@@ -92,11 +89,9 @@
    > were done in one pass, which may go against what is specified in the
    > document.
 
-@James, is there something you want to add here?
-
--- I think it is fine to do it all in one pass.  The suggested
+It is fine to do it all in one pass.  The suggested
    approach in the spec is not required as long as the end results are
-   the same.  This is now stated explicitly. --jrc
+   the same.  This is now stated explicitly.
 
    > 
    > My major concern is the lack of intuition about what valid provenance
@@ -132,10 +127,12 @@
 
 Ordering constraints require that the directed graph from ordering statements contains no cycle containing a strictly precedes edge.
 
+
 -- I think this can be clarified editorially without changing the
    technical content, by explaining the constraint generation/checking
    paradigm we're working in. --jrc
 
+-- This is now done --jrc
 
    > 
    > Overall, I think an implementor could use some examples that show the
@@ -199,7 +196,7 @@
 I updated some of the names, but still:
 @TODO: make rule names more uniform.
 
--- This is editorial.  --jrc
+-- This is editorial. see ISSUE-  --jrc
 
    > 
    > Thanks

--- a/model/comments/issue-459-simon.txt	Thu Aug 30 19:01:02 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-459-simon.txt	Thu Aug 30 19:14:34 2012 +0100
@@ -74,12 +74,12 @@
    > other statements on the assocation that do identify the plan. See
    > related point B below. 
 
-@TODO.  
-@James: what's the resolutoin on this?
 
 This seems to reflect misunderstanding of the resolution of issue
 331.  I've added text clarifying this and asked Simon for review.  --jrc.
 
+Resolved.
+
    > 
    > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/453
    > I think the document is fine as it is. The identifier is the same in
@@ -223,9 +223,6 @@
 
 "Names b1...bn are assumed to be distinct."
 
-@James: are you OK?
-
--- This is OK with me.  --jrc
 
    > 
    > Misc
@@ -269,9 +266,6 @@
 IF entity(e) THEN alternateOf(e,e).
 
 
-@James: are you ok?
-
-Yes, that looks correct.
 
    > 
    > K. Section 5.1, paragraph 1: In the example merge, I wasn't clear why
@@ -290,12 +284,9 @@
    > a list for which the order has no meaning? If so, why would you not
    > say "set"? What is the relevant difference? 
 
-@James: 
 
 prov-dm defines attributes as "set of attribute-value pairs "
-I would replace unordered list by set here? ok?
-
-Yes, this is done. --jrc
+We replaced "unordered list" by "set" here. 
 
    > 
    > Typos

--- a/model/comments/issue-459-tim.txt	Thu Aug 30 19:01:02 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-459-tim.txt	Thu Aug 30 19:14:34 2012 +0100
@@ -1230,8 +1230,8 @@
 figure that summarizes the typing constraints early in
 PROV-CONSTRAINTS (in the non-normative section), if that helps.
 
-A new section 2.3 was introduced with the figure.
-@James: to add text - this is editorial.
+A new section 2.3 was introduced with the figure, giving an overview
+of the constraints.
 
 
    >