> 
 > 
 > Please address the following 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 the document is easy to follow.
 >  
 > 2. Are there minor issues that can be corrected easily prior to final release?
 > Yes, some minor points are listed below 
 > 
 > 3. Are there blocking issues that must be addressed prior to final release?
 > No 
 > 
 > 4. ISSUE-579 requested that we incorporate an axiomatization using a more standard logic formalism e.g. first-order logic.  The current draft attempts to address this.  Can this issue be closed?
 > Yes
 > 
 > 5. ISSUE-635 requested that we address the issues of soundness and completeness in the semantics.  This is currently attempted, by generalizing the semantics (which unfortunately also decreases the connection to intuitive notions of time.)  As a result, we have a soundness and weak completeness result stating that any valid PROV instance has a model and vice versa.  Can this issue be closed?
 > Can be closed - was not able to review completeness properly (will need to cross-check with cited axioms in the Section 6.2.4).
 > 
 > Minor issues:
 > Section 1.1
 > As Khalid pointed out, need to clarify or cite "Naive Semantics".

Again, not sure what is intended here.  Naive just means naive, i.e. there's no reason to believe that it is the only or best example.

 > 
 > Section 2.1
 > The two sentences together are a bit confusing "Identifiers may or may not be URIs. Identifiers are viewed as variables from the point of view of logic."
 > If they are URIs they cannot be variables - I am not sure the statement about URIs is needed here.

Removed the first sentence.  The intent is to align the way people use URIs and sameAs in OWL with variables and equality here.  But if saying less is less confusing I'm happy to do that.

 > 
 > Section 2.3
 > This may be nit picking, should "is a linear order" be replaced by more generic "partial order"?
 > 

It doesn't matter; we never use the time ordering for anything anyway.  I am thinking that timestamps (xsd:dateTime) is linearly ordered in the obvious way, but this doesn't imply anything about the ordering of the associated events, because we don't necessarily know e.g. that all the time stamps are in the same frame of reference/time zone.

 > Section 4.4.12
 > In the Remark "(or that of can be larger)" "larger" is not clear
 >   

Fixed I hope.