--- a/model/comments/issue-459-stian.txt	Tue Aug 07 17:26:12 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-459-stian.txt	Wed Aug 08 10:11:41 2012 +0100
@@ -1230,6 +1230,7 @@
 
 Done
 
+60.
    > > Figure 2e
    > 
    > Shows wasStartedByActivity - now defunct relation. Remove.
@@ -1237,6 +1238,8 @@
 
 ISSUE-468. @Luc?
 
+61.
+
    > 
    > 
    > > Constraint 35 (usage-within-activity)
@@ -1249,6 +1252,9 @@
    > THEN use precedes end.
    > 
    > 
+
+62.
+
    > Same for:
    > > Constraint 36 (generation-within-activity)
    > > IF wasGeneratedBy(gen;_e,a,_t,_attrs) and
@@ -1259,10 +1265,15 @@
    > IF wasGeneratedBy(gen;_e,a,_t,_attrs) and
    > wasEndedBy(end;a,_e2,_a2,_t2,_attrs2) THEN gen precedes end.
    > 
+
+63.
    > 
    > Add new constraint for invalidation within activity, mirroring
    > generation. Add to figure 2.
    > 
+
+64.
+
    > As for generation, invalidation implies ordering of events, since the
    > invalidation event had to occur during the associated activity. This
    > is illustrated by Figure 2 (x) and expressed by Constraint x
@@ -1274,6 +1285,8 @@
    > IF wasInvalidatedBy(inv;_e,a,_t,_attrs) and
    > wasEndedBy(end;a,_e2,_a2,_t2,_attrs2) THEN invprecedes end.
    > 
+
+65.
    > 
    > 
    > > Constraint 37 (wasInformedBy-ordering)
@@ -1296,6 +1309,9 @@
    > I would suggest removing it (and from figure 2), or writing it in a
    > different corollary style.
    > 
+
+66.
+
    > 
    > 
    > > 5.2.2 Entity constraints
@@ -1307,6 +1323,11 @@
    > I don't understand 3c), something seems to be missing. The lower arrow
    > from e2 has no label (was derived from?), and there are no activities.
    > 
+
+
+@Luc? - change figures
+
+67.
    > 
    > 
    > > Constraint 38 (generation-precedes-invalidation)
@@ -1354,9 +1375,15 @@
    > infinitesimal) time. Note that this requirement does not apply to
    > activities."
    > 
+
+This is ISSUE-469
+
+68.
    > Constraint 38 and 40 are not shown in Figure 3.
    > 
    > 
+
+69.
    > > First, we consider derivations, where the activity and usage are known.
    > -->
    > First, we consider derivations where the activity and usage are known. In
@@ -1390,6 +1417,11 @@
    > reformulated as a corollary with constraint 42+39.  I don't see a good
    > reasoning for that to be strictly.
    > 
+
+This is ISSUE-470
+
+70.
+
    > 
    > A  suggested Remark for constraint 42:
    > "This constraint, similar to constraint 38, requires the derived
@@ -1401,6 +1433,8 @@
    > the derived entity must be newer than the original entity. "
    > 
    > 
+
+71.
    > Unique variables to avoid confusion:
    > 
    > > Constraint 43 (wasStartedBy-ordering)
@@ -1413,6 +1447,8 @@
    > wasInvalidatedBy(inv;e,_a3,_t3,_attrs3) THEN start precedes inv.
    > 
    > 
+
+72.
    > 
    > > Constraint 44 (wasEndedBy-ordering)
    > > IF wasEndedBy(end;_a,e,_a1,_t1,_attrs1) and wasGeneratedBy(gen;e,_a2,_t2,_attrs2) THEN gen precedes end.
@@ -1423,6 +1459,8 @@
    > wasInvalidatedBy(inv;e,_a3,_t3,_attrs3) THEN end precedes inv.
    > 
    > 
+
+73.
    > 
    > 
    > > 5.2.3 Agent constraints
@@ -1438,11 +1476,15 @@
    > non-entity agents, appropriate constraints for their particular
    > lifetime would apply, but that would be out of scope for this
    > document.
-   > 
+   >
+
+74. 
    > 
    > Figure 5a) is very difficult to understand, as the extent of the two
    > triangles is not shown. Could this be added, such as in 2a)?
    > 
+
+74.
    > 
    > > The agent may be generated, or may only become associated with the activity, after the activity start:
    > 
@@ -1457,6 +1499,8 @@
    > 
    > "is required to" -> "MUST"
    > 
+
+75.
    > 
    > > Constraint 47 (wasAssociatedWith-ordering)
    >    >    >    >    >    >    > > IF
@@ -1471,13 +1515,18 @@
    > Plan is not required (and is non-expandable), so replace _pl with - or
    > add note that _pl above MAY be -.
    > 
+
+76.
    > Make identifiers unique in second line:
    > 
    > IF wasAssociatedWith(_assoc;a,ag,_pl,_attrs) and
    > wasGeneratedBy(gen;ag,_a3,_t3,_attrs3) and
    > wasEndedBy(end;a,_e4,_a4,_t4,_attrs4) THEN gen precedes end.
    > 
-   > 
+   >
+
+77.
+ 
    > > An entity that was attributed to an agent must have some overlap with the agent.
    > 
    > Why??
@@ -1539,6 +1588,10 @@
    > "For delegation, the responsible agent must have been generated before
    > the invalidation of the delegated agent.".
    > 
+
+This is ISSUE-471
+
+78.
    > 
    > 5.4:
    > 
@@ -1550,6 +1603,9 @@
    > IF entity(c,[prov:type='prov:EmptyCollection']) THEN 'entity' ∈
    > typeOf(c) AND 'prov:Collection' ∈ typeOf(c) AND 'prov:EmptyCollection'
    > ∈ typeOf(c).
+
+
+79.
    > 
    > > IF wasDerivedFrom(id; e2, e1, a, g2, u1, attrs) THEN 'entity' ∈
    > typeOf(e2) AND 'entity' ∈ typeOf(e1) AND 'activity' ∈ typeOf(a). 
@@ -1559,6 +1615,8 @@
    > IF wasDerivedFrom(id; e2, e1, -, -, -, attrs) THEN 'entity' ∈
    > typeOf(e2) AND 'entity' ∈ typeOf(e1)
    > 
+
+80.
    > 
    >    > > IF wasAssociatedWith(id;a,ag,pl,attrs) THEN 'activity' ∈
    > typeOf(a) AND 'agent' ∈ typeOf(ag) AND 'entity' ∈ typeOf(pl). 
@@ -1568,6 +1626,8 @@
    > IF wasAssociatedWith(id;a,ag,-,attrs) THEN 'activity' ∈ typeOf(a) AND
    > 'agent' ∈ typeOf(ag)
    > 
+
+81.
    > 
    >    > > Note that there is no disjointness between entities and
    > agents. This is because one might want to make statements about
@@ -1577,6 +1637,9 @@
    > 
    > Similarly, an agent might in some cases be expressed rather as an activity.
    > 
+
+82.
+
    > 
    > > 6. Normalization, Validity, and Equivalence
   >    > > Because of the potential interaction among inferences,
@@ -1590,11 +1653,18 @@
    > I find I need to add a condition to not follow inferences on purely
    > existential variables to avoid a recursive loop. So I would add that
    > to point 4.
+
+
+83.
+
    > 
    > >  (Replacing two different names with equal names does change the meaning.)
    > 
    > --> "... does however change ..."
    > 
+
+
+84.
    > 
    > > D. References
    >