> Review questions:
 > 
 > 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 (couple points for clarification listed below)
 >  
 > 2.  Are there minor issues that can be corrected easily prior to FPWD release?
 > 
 > Yes
 >  
 > 3.  Are there blocking issues that must be addressed prior to release as a first public working draft?
 > 
 > No
 >  
 > 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).
 > 
 > Possibly some points need discussions
 > 
 > My comments:
 > 
 > Section 2.1
 > a) "Identifiers are viewed as variables in logic (or blank nodes in RDF)" - Not clear about reference to blank nodes in RDF (they are existentially qualified identifiers?)
 > 

Removed the probably confusing reference to RDF (since you're right that variables need not be solely existential here).

 > Section 3.1:
 > a) "An object could just be a record of fixed attribute values; it could be a bear; it could be the Royal Society; it could be a transcendental number like ..." - object is used in description of Thing - typo? 

Fixed

 > 
 > b) "It is possible for two Things to be indistinguishable by their attribute values and lifetime, but have different identity." - Is there one Thing with two identities, if there are two Things it would be natural to have two identity? Maybe some clarification will help.
 > 

By "identity" I mean an element of the set of things.  This passage was confusing and I changed it to clarify what I am trying to say: basically, two different things  can be indistinguishable in terms of their attributes and lifespan withoug being identical.

 > c) It is not clear why we need a strict disjointness constraint for object and Thing.
 > 

It is not necessary anywhere, but I think it is less confusing to keep the two sets separate (and this doesn't stop us from doing anything as far as I can see).  Otherwise, say x in Object intersect Thing, then could it have different lifespans according to whether we consider it an object or a thing?  

 > c) "Objects encompass entities, interactions, and activities." - Then we don't need to list "agent" explicitly for range of quantifiers in Section 4.1 (Remarks), Section 3.2.4 (Component 7 (4))
 > 

Fixed this inconsistency - Objects include entities, activities, agents and interactions everywhere now.

 > Section 3.2.3
 > a) " An agent can be an entity, an activity, or neither; ..." Not clear about "neither"
 >  

There is nothing in PROV-DM or PROV-CONSTRAINTS to say that an agent must be an entity or an activity, only that some agents might be entities or activities (but not both).

 > Section 3.2.4
 > a) Not clear why the Associations, Communications etc. have to be disjoint? 

This is to match constraint 53.

 > 
 > Section 3.3.1
 > a) DerivationPaths=Entities⋅(Events⋅Activities⋅Events⋅Entities) - We can replace Events by Generation and Used directly since the following constraints specifies only one replacement for Events?
 > 

I will do this in a future version.

 > Minor Typos:
 > Section 3.2.2 Actvities/Activities
 > Section 4.4.12 "...two entities present aspects of the same Thing..."/"...two entities present different aspects of the same Thing..."
 > Section 5.1 Inference 17 "alternateOf(e_2, e_1)$"/ "alternateOf(e_1,e_3)$

Fixed.