--- a/model/simon-comments.txt Thu Oct 06 16:01:54 2011 +0200
+++ b/model/simon-comments.txt Thu Oct 06 15:14:17 2011 +0100
@@ -64,6 +64,7 @@
???? I don't understand
PM "instantaneous"?
+Luc OK
===================
===================
@@ -76,6 +77,8 @@
PM agree, statement seems clear to me.
it's an order amongst events, not instants in time
it's partial: you can't always say ev1 before ev2
+
+LUC: No change then
===================
@@ -219,6 +222,8 @@
PM: the account is mentioned for accuracy of definition here. If you din't know about accounts, then this would just be correct without qualification.
So I would leave it as is.
+
+Luc: OK
===================
@@ -233,7 +238,12 @@
of saying the same thing.
PM agree with you but also this set of constraints may come across as odd: there is derivation-use but should there be derviation-generation as well?
+
+Luc: the text below derivation-use says that the symmetric inference does not hold.
+
also can we put derivation-attributes first: it is the one that defines the meaning of derivation.
+
+Luc: does it also hold for wasEventuallyDerivedFrom? If so, it should even be in 5.3.3.
===================
>
@@ -268,6 +278,8 @@
TODO: what other meaningful qualifier could we use for control?
PM don't kow but for consistency I think we should add them
+
+Luc: I was thinking of properties such as synchronous/asynchronous control. Do they make sense?
===================
@@ -283,6 +295,8 @@
PM we discussed this for ages. It should be there. to me this is about a formal definition of how entities can be compared across accounts
PM there was a lot of noise of changing the term "complement-of" have we ever considered that??
+
+Luc: We should put a note for now.
===================
>(C) The text suddenly starts talking about "properties" from the
@@ -303,6 +317,7 @@
PM agree, you can't just state it's not transitive. We have had a long discussion on this which indicates that readers would be puzzled if there was no justification
+
===================
@@ -324,6 +339,8 @@
should probably be moved to section 7.
PM yes. it /is/ odd. but keep in mind that the OWL group is including it
+
+Luc: I think it's intresting for complemenetOF. So you can say that e0 participated in pe1, I think, t in the example.
===================
>