> ====
 > Minor issues:
 > ====
 > 
 > 1.1. " It is intended as an exploration of a reference semantics for PROV, not a definitive specification of the only semantics of PROV."
 >    this may be too defensive?: it seems to imply that there may be other semantics of PROV  but in that case it is not clear where sand when they would come from, and thus whether using this document is "safe".
 > 

Following comments from Luc, I think it is important to delimit the
scope of the document.  It is not a specification and we don't want to
make it sound like it is doing more than it is.  I've revised this
slightly and it needs to be updated later to reflect any improvements.

 > 1.2 final note: not sure what this refers too -- assume it's for internal use only.

Clarified this

 > 
 > 3. 
 > 
 > 3.1
 >     "Things are things in the world."  some may find this a bit tautologic? since you give examples of Objects, why not give examples of Things too here, this would actually help appreciate the sharp distinction between the two that you make in 3.2 ("objects are not things...").
 >    Use of term "object" before 3.2 may be confusing

Fixed.  The examples are actually examples of Things; the notation was inconsistent.

 > 
 > 3.2
 >   "An Object is described by a time interval and attributes with unchanging values."  would adding "within that time interval" clarify the distinction between things and objects? (and would it be correct)

Rephrased this

 > 
 >    "however, certain objects, namely entities, are linked to things."  "linked to" seems deliberately weak -- is it too strong to say that entities can be representations of things?

We had a lot of discussions about whether objects/entities represent things and I didn't want to reopen that worm can.  I'd prefer a weaker statement about the structures, that doesn't have as much baggage.

 > 
 > 3.2.4.5 Derivations
 >   "chaining one or more generation and use steps."  this may lead to incorrect inference assumptions (that from use/gen you can infer derivations). Since this is clarified in 4.4.10, maybe put a ref to it?

Well, we don't say that a generation + use step implies a derivation step anywhere.  I've added a remark clarifying this.

 > 
 > 4.4.10 (also remark in 3.3.1) the terms "precise" and "imprecise" are not from PROV-DM, indeed not in CONSTR either. But in CONSTR inference 11 effectively requires derivation to be preciseI. it may be worth unifying the terminology?

Added a remark clarifying this.

 > 
 >  6 I think the terms "normal form" and "valid" only appear here (and in  1.1 -- purpose). It may be useful to recall their meaning here from the constraints doc? 
 > 

Highlighted the uses of the terms and referred to prov-constraints.

 > 
 > 
 > typos / gremlins:
 > 
 > - mix of italics/ plain font:   
 >     "alternateOf and specializationOf relations" in 1.1
 >     "We write Identifiers for the set of identifiers" in 2.1  etc

This is intentional, italic typeface is used for mathematical notation a la LaTeX and so these refer to relation or set names.  There are places where capitalized words aren't italicized and should be, which I'll try to fix.

 >      prints cramped in my rendering, and looks cramped too in the browser
 > 

It is difficult to get the rules to print out cleanly in a systematic way, since mathML seems to render on one line by default.  I will try to fix this in future versions.

 > - abstract: on use -> on the use
 > 
 > 3.2.1 remark  "orthe associated thing"
 > 
 > 3.2.4.1 "invalidation} if and only of evt∈Events." (partially unreadable, of -> if)
 > 
 > 3.3  bullet point 5:  Association -> Associations
 > 
 > 3.3., 3.3.1 EventActivity/ EventActivities 
 > 
 > 
 > 5.1 onwards:  a few rho --> \rho gremlins in Proofs
 > 
 
All fixed