--- a/model/comments/issue-459-simon.txt	Tue Aug 07 09:30:23 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-459-simon.txt	Tue Aug 07 09:32:44 2012 +0100
@@ -48,6 +48,12 @@
    > another mutable attribute (length) of the same entity, so the entity
    > has influenced itself. 
    > 
+
+The WG voted for dropping irreflexiblity constraint of
+wasInfluencedBy.
+
+The strict ordering constraint for wasDerivedFrom remains though.
+
    > 6.  Are there any objections to closing other open issues on PROV-CONSTRAINTS?  They are:
    > 
    > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/387
@@ -67,6 +73,10 @@
    > chosen not to identify it if it does exist. This does not preclude
    > other statements on the assocation that do identify the plan. See
    > related point B below. 
+
+@TODO.  
+@James: what's the resolutoin on this?
+
    > 
    > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/453
    > I think the document is fine as it is. The identifier is the same in
@@ -89,6 +99,13 @@
    > maybe the section title could include 'PROV-N' to clarify this. If the
    > latter, it would be helpful to indicate what the 'optional
    > identifiers' etc. correspond to in the DM independent of PROV-N. 
+
+
+Definition 3 (definition-short-forms) is PROV-N specific.  The rest of
+the section is PROV.
+
+Introductory text updated.
+
    > 
    > B. Remark under Definition 4: "In an association... the absence of a
    > plan means: either no plan exists, or a plan exists but is not
@@ -99,6 +116,11 @@
    > how did the derivation occur? Or that it can mean the activity existed
    > but is not identified? But isn't that what - means in every other
    > relation? Why would activity in wasDerivedFrom be a special case? 
+
+The text was updated and now states "In the latter form, it is not
+specified if one or more activities are involved in the derivation."  
+
+
    > 
    > Unique generations
    > -----------