> - abstract: PROv -> PROV

Done

 > - sotd paragraph: add the paragraph about feedback and errata.
 > 

Done

 > - section 1: paragraph 1: definition of provenance: cite prov-dm.
 > 

Done

 > - section 1.1: generation/invalidation  -> generation, invalidation
 > 

Done

 > - section 1.1: make 'not' bold
 >   not a definitive specification of the ONLY semantics
 >   ->
 >   NOT a definitive specification of the ONLY semantics
 > 

Done

 > 
 > - I like the mapping to events.
 > 
 > -  remark in 3.2.4.6: assocated -> associated

Done

 > 
 > - remark in 3.2.4.6: I didn't understand the last paragraph of the
 > remark. why is it there is no way to express multi step derivation
 > path?

There is no way to write a PROV instance whose ONLY models have multiple step derivations.

 > 
 > - component 15 axioms: I was surprised to see a reference to things among
 > the axioms (see axiom 5).  But I guess, this is OK.
 > 

This is because one of the constraints links revision and alternate in a semi-arbitrary way (that is, there is nothing about the way revisions are interpreted that forces this).  There are other constraints about alternate but these follow from the way alternate is modeled.

 > 
 > - section 3.3, remark: well spotted that we miss a constraint for
 >  invalidation.
 >  Did you identify it when proving properties?

Yes

 > 
 > - section 4.3.2. How is \rho(st) defined?  what it 'st' is a constant
 >  or an identifier?

"st" is an ordinary parameter, i.e. either a time value constant or an identifier denoting an unknown time.  

 > 
 > - section 6.2: for the reader, can you make explicit why this is "WEAK completness".
 > 

addressed in a remark/lemma

 > - just before 6.2.1: why can you set each time variable to some dummy value?
 > 
 >  Is it because once, you have established an instance is valid, then
 >  you have already unified all possible time variable to ground
 >  values. Then, instantiating any time variable can no longer break
 >  any constraints.

Yes, and this is because time values (and their ordering) are "just data", and so their values are irrelevant.

 > 
 > - 6.2.3:
 > 
 >  amond -> among
 > 
 >
Done