--- a/model/simon-comments.txt	Thu Oct 06 14:01:24 2011 +0100
+++ b/model/simon-comments.txt	Thu Oct 06 15:57:11 2011 +0200
@@ -57,18 +57,30 @@
 
 Done
 
+===================
 >(C) paragraph 6: "punctual events"? "punctual" as most commonly used
 >implies prior planning of when something should occur. I'm not sure
 >what you are intending in this context.
 
 ???? I don't understand
+PM "instantaneous"? 
+===================
 
+===================
 >(C) paragraph 6: "a partial order exists between events". I assume you
 >mean a temporal order? What kind of ordering do you mean?
 
 ... partial ;-) .... between events... 
 What is the issue?
 
+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
+===================
+
+
+
+===================
 >(C) paragraph 6: "global notion of time and Lamport's style clocks" -
 >this seems like a weirdly specific level of detail for this overview
 >section, especially considering that many other aspects of the model
@@ -77,6 +89,10 @@
 Given that time is so critical and the object of several issues, it's
 important to state our assumptions.
 
+PM I think you wrote it correctly, but also that we are not stating any assumptions: you say that this is out of scope, and point to a possible frame of reference. I see no problems
+===================
+
+
 >
 >Sec 2.3:
 >(C) Regarding the note (not attempting to ensure consistency of an
@@ -187,7 +203,7 @@
 
 Done
 
->
+===================
 >Sec 5.3.3.1:
 >(C) I suggest that, as accounts are not introduced until later in the
 >document, the generation-unicity constraint will not make sense here.
@@ -201,7 +217,12 @@
 provenance assertions are always in accounts (even if it is a default
 account of the provenance container).
 
+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. 
+===================
 
+
+===================
 >(C) Given that constraint derivation-events applies, don't we just
 >have two ways of saying the same thing? Why use the long form of
 >wasDerivedFrom when the same can be expressed using wasGeneratedBy and
@@ -211,6 +232,10 @@
 It's not an equivalence, it's an implication.  We don't have two ways
 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?
+also can we put derivation-attributes first: it is the one that defines the meaning of derivation.
+===================
+
 >
 >Sec 5.3.3.2:
 >(T?) Constraint "derivation-linked-independent" seems to be a
@@ -235,13 +260,18 @@
 
 TODO
 
+===================
 >(T) The text may be read to imply that a control link has only one
 >qualifier, role, whereas I guess you mean that, like use/generate, it
 >can have multiple "modalities" as part of the qualifier?
 
 TODO: what other meaningful qualifier could we use for control?
 
->
+PM don't kow but for consistency I think we should add them 
+===================
+
+
+===================
 >Sec 5.3.5:
 >(C) I can see this section causing some difficulty... While that may
 >just be the nature of the topic, there seems an important thing
@@ -251,6 +281,9 @@
 
 TODO
 
+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??
+===================
 
 >(C) The text suddenly starts talking about "properties" from the
 >second paragraph. What are these, and do they have any relation to
@@ -259,6 +292,7 @@
 We had agreed it should be 'attribute(s)'. Text udpated.
 
 
+===================
 >(C) Should the justification of why the complementarity relation is
 >not transitive be in this document? I would expect this document to
 >just state that it is not transitive and, for brevity and simplicity,
@@ -267,6 +301,11 @@
 At this time, there is no such other document. It also brings intuition.
 So, no change.
 
+
+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
+===================
+
+
 >
 >Sec 5.3.6:
 >(C) Similarly to above, I'm not sure the justification of why
@@ -274,6 +313,7 @@
 
 Same.
 
+===================
 >Sec 5.3.8:
 >(C) Constraint participation: This seems odd to me. In what
 >circumstances would you not know or want to assert which of the three
@@ -283,6 +323,8 @@
 I am not a fan of it.  This said, it's one of those "extensions" and
 should probably be moved to section 7.
 
+PM yes. it /is/ odd.  but keep in mind that the OWL group is including it 
+===================
 
 >
 >Sec 5.3.9:
@@ -293,7 +335,7 @@
 Grammar revisited. Example extended. Explanation provided.
 Not sure the grammar allows for all forms of relations to be captured.
 
->
+===================
 >Sec 5.4.1:
 >(C) This appears to be yet another way to say the same thing,
 >following the comment on Sec 4.2 above. If A is an "asserter" of
@@ -307,6 +349,9 @@
 If the WG support the idea that the asserter should be an agent, that
 we'll go for it.
 
+PM just leave the note there 
+===================
+
 >
 >Sec 5.4.2:
 >(T) Second sentence: "return all the provenance assertions" - all the
@@ -333,7 +378,7 @@
 >to make the model concrete and readable.
 
 TODO: should we change to MAY contain a qualifier. A qualifier is a non empty sequence ...
-
+  
 >
 >Sec 5.5.4:
 >(C) Second note: Wouldn't this mean that either account IDs or entity