> > > 
   > > > Question for reviewers: Can the document be published as Last Call working draft?
   > Yes, but please take note of suggestions below.
   > 
   > 0. I don't understand the rationale for deciding who is an author.  I
   > believe it is up to the editors, but there are some things that I've
   > helped with here, and I'm not listed (examples: definitions of
   > specialization/alternate, and semicolon syntax for optional
   > identifiers).  I haven't directly written much so wouldn't fight to be
   > included, but at this point I have probably done more than for PROV-O,
   > where I am listed as an author. (I also wouldn't fight to stay listed
   > there but am happy to stay listed.)
   >  
   > Also, should some of the authors of PROV-DM also be listed on PROV-N
   > or PROV-CONSTRAINTS, since they were split up?  Having become an
   > editor of the latter only recently, I would like to make sure we
   > credit people that contributed to it.
   > 
   > 1. S5, "itself dependen on" - spelling

Fixed.
   > 
   > 2.  Table 5 and sec. 5.6.2: I have trouble reading
   > "memberOf(c,{e1,...,en})" - the elements e1,...,en are members of c,
   > not the other way around.
   > 
   > Moreover, I don't understand why memberOf needs to be so complex, with
   > an id and attributes, if it is just a "hook" for linking up with other
   > vocabularies that have membership.  Why not just "memberOf(element,
   > collection)"?  This is what I thought we agreed at f2f3.  We could
   > also omit EmptyCollection and the completeness flag.


My understanding is that we were keeping previous definitions for
collections, and moving dictionaries elsewhere.


   > 
   > 3.  Figure 7 and 7b: I suggest renumbering, or renaming "Figure 7" to
   > "Figure 7a"

Figure 7b  is Figure 8.

   > 
   > 4.  S5.3.5.  "capacity an entity" -> "capacity of an entity"

Fixed.

   > 
   > 5.  Example 45.  I am afraid I don't understand how the current
   > definition of mentionOf accommodates the example.  Why doesn't bondle
   > tool:analysis1 rate the two activities Bob was associated with (or the
   > associations themselves) rather than rating (different mentions of)
   > Bob?


This example is concerned with a performance rating tool that reads
and processes provenance to determine the performance of agents.  To
keep the example simple, an agent's performance is determined by the
duration of the activities it is associated with.

Text was updated accordingly.

   > 
   > 6.  In example 46 (which I'm also not sure I understand, but never
   > mind), the bundles in mentionOf are the second arguments, I think they
   > should be third.

Thanks. Fixed.

   > 
   > 7.  I would also suggest that the bundle in mentionOf should be
   > mandatory, not optional.  


Correct, this was fixed.