--- a/model/comments-from-graham.txt	Fri Jul 29 12:16:38 2011 +0100
+++ b/model/comments-from-graham.txt	Fri Jul 29 14:20:28 2011 +0100
@@ -266,6 +266,10 @@
   > [[ A provenance assertion is made at a particular point and is
   > invariant, in the sense that the attributes it mentions do not change
   > for the entity concerned.  ]]
+
+LUC: EMAIL sent to GK. It looks like GK proposes a class declaration, but
+he doesn't instantiate the values of attributes.
+
   > 
   > [[ A BOB assertion must describe a characterized entity over a
   > continuous time interval in the world (which may collapse into a
@@ -281,12 +285,23 @@
   > time-segments caused by the rotation of the earth and other factors. I
   > can't see any clear benefit in being forced to treat these
   > observation-sets as distinct entities.
+
+LUC: The origin of this is the example Luc in Boston. Luc went in June and in October. The October visit may be dependent onthe June visit. So, they must be different BOBs.  
+
+Luc: Maybe it's too strong to mandate the continuous interval.  It
+could be fine to have discontinuous intervals. But to say that the
+October visit depends on the June one, they need to be different BOBs.
+
+
   > 
   > [[ There is no assumption that the set of attributes is complete and
   > that the attributes are independent/orthogonal of each other.  ]] I
   > don't see this adding any useful information here.  Remove?
 
 
+LUC: I would keep.
+
+
 No issue raised
 
   > 5.2 Process Execution
@@ -298,6 +313,8 @@
   > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology#Common_terms_in_formal_ontologies)
 
 
+LUC: correct. Do we need to mention this?
+
 ISSUE-59
   > 5.3 Generation
   > 
@@ -307,11 +324,20 @@
   > If I had not previously read about OPM, I'd be completely confused by
   > the introduction of "role" here.  Following the hyperlink here does
   > not help at all.
+
+
+LUC: Paolo you win, let's move ROLE up!
+
   > 
   > [[ Given an assertion isGeneratedBy(x,pe,r) or
   > isGeneratedBy(x,pe,r,t), the activity denoted by pe and the entities
   > used by pe dermine values of some of x's attributes.  ]] I've no idea
   > what this is trying to say.
+
+
+????
+
+
   > 
   > 
 
@@ -324,6 +350,15 @@
   > that refer to a given process execution, but each of those use
   > assertions must have a distinct role.  ]] In light of the above, this
   > seems nonsensical to me.
+
+LUC: Message sent to GK
+
+For any b, bob(b,[...])
+    any pe, processExecution(pe)
+    
+    for any two assertions use(pe,b,r1,t1) and use(pe,b,r2,t2), then
+     r1 <> r2
+
   > 
   > [[ Given an assertion uses(pe,x,r) or uses(pe,x,r,t), at least one
   > value of x's attributes is a pre-condition for the activity denoted by
@@ -336,6 +371,10 @@
   > 
   > [[ Given an assertion uses(pe,x,r) or uses(pe,x,r,t), existence of x
   > is a pre-condition for the activity denoted by pe to terminate.  ]]
+
+
+LUC: Phrasing may not be right,  but we try to state more than this.
+
   > 
   > 
 
@@ -402,6 +441,8 @@
   > http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime.
 
 
+
+
 No issue raised
 
   >