> 1.  Is the purpose of the document clear and consistent with the
 > working group's consensus about the semantics?  If not, can you
 > suggest clarifications or improvements?
 > 
 > Yes.
 > 
 > 
 > 2.  Are there minor issues that can be corrected easily prior to FPWD release?
 >     
 > Yes, I am listing them below.
 > 
 > 2.1 In component 1 (things). The second bullet states that "a function
 > lifetime:Things→Intervals from objects to time intervals". Shouldnt it
 > be "from things to time intervals"?

Yes, fixed.

 > 
 > 2.2 In section 3.2, I think it would be good to add text explaining
 > the relationship between Things and Objects, before definition
 > Objects.

Done

 > 
 > 2.3 In the definition of Component 10 (derivations), I think version
 > should be replaced by revision.

Done

 > 
 > 2.4 In Section 3.3, when listing simple relations, the variable "g" is
 > not introduced. Actually I think you meant to use "evt" instead.

Fixed

 > 
 > 2.5 In the same section, in the first bullet "use" should be replaced
 > by "usage" as this was the term used when defining events in component
 > 8 (events).

Fixed

 > 
 > 2.5 In the same section, there is an error in talking about
 > invalidation (bullet 3), min(lifetime(e)) = time(evt) should be
 > modified to max(lifetime(e)) = time(evt)

Fixed

 > 
 > 2.6 The document makes distinguishes between precise and iprecise
 > derivation, and refer to "Imprecise wasDerivedFrom". PROV-DM does not
 > makes that distinction anymore. I think distinguishing the two is
 > worthwile in ProvSem. So here the suggestion is add a sentence or two
 > introducing the two kinds of derivation and not referring to the
 > PROV-DM.

Fixed

 > 
 > 2.7 In the proof of inference 16, inference 17 and inference 18,
 > "rho(e1)" should be replaced by "p(e1)".
 > 

Fixed

 > 
 > 3.  Are there blocking issues that must be addressed prior to release
 > as a first public working draft?
 > 
 > 
 > There are no blocking issues before release as a first public working draft.
 > 
 > 
 > 4.  Are there non-blocking, but important issues that should be
 > discussed and resolved for future editions? (no need to list TODOs
 > already reflected in the document itself, unless there is disagreement
 > about how to resolve them).
 > 
 > The following comments can be included later on. They are by no mean blocking.
 > 
 > 4.1 I noticed that bundles are not mentioned in the document. Is there
 > a reason for that?

Yes; this is now addressed in the introduction.  See also Luc's comment.

 > 
 > 4.2 In the definition of Component 3 (entities), the function thingOf
 > is used to associate Entities with Things. Is there any reason why
 > such a function is not generalized to associate Objects with Things?

No, but there is no need for it either.  The only relations that involve the thingOf function are specialization and alternate, which can only be used on entities.

 > 
 > 4.3 The derivation path (Section 3.3.1) is defined as
 > DerivationPaths=Entities⋅(Events⋅Activities⋅Events⋅Entities)+ I this
 > this can be more specific by identifying the kind of events, whether
 > they are generation or usage. This suggestion will require introducing
 > a new sets that are subsets of Events, namely Generations and Usages.
 > 

I will do this in a future version.

 > 4.4 In the formulas defining the semantics of the relation sin Section
 > 4.4, place hoder parameters are not specified.
 > 

Fixed - now there are two formalism boxes.