--- a/model/comments/wd6-Graham.txt	Tue May 29 09:37:08 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/wd6-Graham.txt	Tue May 29 10:25:58 2012 +0100
@@ -447,6 +447,10 @@
   > for reliability or trustworthiness decisions, but does not specify how
   > any such decisions should be made.  ]]
   > 
+
+There is too much instance on this in your suggestions. I am dropping this.
+
+
   > .........
   > 
   > I'm going to review the rest of section 2 more quickly.  I won't necessarily try to suggest alternatives
@@ -475,6 +479,10 @@
   > 
   > (Suggest dropping the "defined as ..." and linking the example to the actual definition.)
   > 
+
+They are definition as before.  
+I suggest no change.
+
   > 
   > == 2.2.1.2 ==
   > 
@@ -497,8 +505,14 @@
   > executed by a software agent.
   > 
   > ]]
+
+I trimmed some of the text, but kept the original definitions.
+
   > 
   > (Why is the agent optional in section 5.2.3?)
+
+See example 36.
+
   > 
   > 
   > == 2.2.1.3 ==
@@ -515,9 +529,17 @@
   > It's not clear to me whether *any* relation can be reified in this
   > way, or are there some for which the optional id parameter is not
   > allowed?
+
+I think the text is clear, and says "in some cases".
+We decided not to do it for specialization/alternate for instance.
   > 
   > Does use of this structure map 1:1 to use of qualified relations in
   > the ontology?  I think not.
+
+As far as I can see, it does. In UML diagrams, "association classes" correspond
+to qualified classes.
+
+
   > 
   > 
   > == 2.2.2 ==

--- a/model/prov-dm.html	Tue May 29 09:37:08 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/prov-dm.html	Tue May 29 10:25:58 2012 +0100
@@ -521,7 +521,7 @@
 
 <p>At its core, provenance describes the use and production of
 <em>entities</em> by <em>activities</em>, which may be 
-controlled or influenced in
+influenced in
 various ways by <em>agents</em>.  These core types and their relationships
 are illustrated
 by
@@ -880,28 +880,29 @@
 <p>To illustrate expanded relations, we consider the concept of
 association, described
 in <a href="#section-agents-attribution-association-delegation">section
-2.1.2</a>.  Agents may adopt sets of actions or steps to achieve their
-goals in the context of an activity: this is captured by the notion of
-a plan.  Thus, an activity may reflect the execution of a plan that was
-designed in advance to guide the execution.  Hence, an expanded
-association relation allows a plan be linked to an
-activity. Plan is defined by subtyping and full association by an expanded relation, as follows. </p>
+2.1.3</a>.  Agents may adopt <em>plans</em>, i.e.  sets of actions or steps, to achieve their
+goals in the context of an activity.
+Hence, an expanded form of
+association relation allows for a plan to be specified. Plan is defined by subtyping and 
+full association by an expanded relation, as follows. </p>
 
 <p>
 <span class="glossary-ref" data-ref="glossary-plan"  data-withspan="true">
 </span>
-There exist no
+</p> 
+
+
+<p>
+<span class="glossary-ref" data-ref="glossary-activityAssociation"  data-withspan="true"></span>
+</p>
+
+<p>There exist no
 prescriptive requirement on the nature of plans, their representation, the
 actions or steps they consist of, or their intended goals.  Since plans may evolve over time,
 it may become necessary to track their provenance, so plans themselves are
 entities. Representing the plan explicitly in the provenance can be useful for various tasks: for example, to  
 validate the execution as represented in the provenance record, to  
-manage expectation failures, or to provide explanations.</p> 
-
-
-<p>
-<span class="glossary-ref" data-ref="glossary-activityAssociation"  data-withspan="true"></span>
-</p>
+manage expectation failures, or to provide explanations.</p>
 
 
 <div class="anexample conceptexample" id="association-example2">