> Yes, the document seem clear and the semantics correct. I see no blocking issues, but some more minor ones below. The two issues mentioned seem fully addressed to my (shallow) knowledge of them.
 > 
 > Abstract: "PROv" should be "PROV"

Done

 > 
 > Section 1.1: "Although it is a work in progress" (3rd paragraph) and "(as yet)" (fourth paragraph). Is this appropriate for the final release of the note?

I've adjusted this.  Basically, I'm a little uncomfortable with publishing something with "theorems" and "proofs" that hasn't been formally peer-reviewed.  So I've removed the preliminary-sounding text above and added a paragraph just noting that the WG has reviewed it and it reflects a consensus but this hasn't been peer-reviewed as far as the formal content goes.


 > 
 > Section 2.2: "a set Values... we sometimes use the set P(Value)" (Values vs Value)
 > 

Fixed

 > Section 2.3: "Times SUBSET Val" should be "Times SUBSET Values"
 > 

Fixed


 > Section 2.4: "a null symbol "-". Placeholder symbols - " -> They seem to be the same symbol except that null has quotes round it (though it doesn't when used later). Can this be clarified?
 > 

The quotes are for rmphasis, since otherwise it looks strange in the text.  So they should all be "-" when they occur in a sentence.  Fixed.


 > Section 3.1: "Each thing has an associates set of Events" -> "associated set of Events"
 > 

Fixed

 > Section 3.1, Component 1, point 3: "from things to sets of events." does not seem to explain the relation. Shouldn't it be "from things to the sets of events associated with those things."?
 > 

Fixed "to associated sets of events"

 > Section 3.2.4.1: "An Event is an influence whose events is a single time instant" -> I just couldn't interpret this statement. Are there one or several events (it is ungrammatical)? I assume when you say "whose events" you mean the events associated to the (influence) object, but if so, I think this could be rephrased to be clearer. It seems a circular definition, as "events" refers to elements of the set "Event", right? I think I would need some rephrasing to help understand what was intended.
 > 

Sorry, this was due to a late search-and-replace replacing "time interval" with "set of events".  Fixed to " instantaneous influence that relates an activity to an entity"

 > Section 3.2.4.1: "relates an activity to an entity (which could be an agent)" -> should this be "(either of which could be an agent)"?

Yes, fixed.

 > 
 > Sections 4.4.*: Many of the rules use a mixture of "e" and "ent", "e1" and "ent1", "e2" and "ent2", and in Semantics 30, "ent2.gen.act.use.ent1" should be "e2.g.a.u.e1" I think.
 > 

Actually, this is intentional: the rules generally use parameter names like e,a etc. for syntax, and then define ent = rho(e), act = rho(a), etc. as the semantic values associated to the symbols by rho.  In particular, the derivation paths are paths of semantic entities, generations, activities, etc. and so we want to use ent2, gen, act, etc. there.

 > Section 4.4.12: "The events of ent1 is contained" (ungrammatical) 

Fixed.

 > 
 > Section 6.2.2: "the values of attributes of e are those immediately declared for e along with those of any specialization". Why? Isn't this the wrong way round? An entity's specialization has attribute values that the entity does not have (across its lifetime). I may have misunderstood the intent here.
 > 

Yes ,this was backwards in the text, updated to "... of any $e'$ that $e$ specializes"

 > Section 6.2.3: "amond" -> "among".
 > 

Fixed.