--- a/model/ProvenanceModel.html	Thu Sep 22 09:19:46 2011 +0100
+++ b/model/ProvenanceModel.html	Thu Sep 22 15:46:07 2011 +0100
@@ -252,6 +252,9 @@
 These representations are relative to an asserter, and in that sense constitute assertions stating properties of the world, as represented by an asserter. Different asserters will normally contribute different representations, and no attempt is made to define a notion of consistency of such different sets of assertions. The data model provides the means to associate attribution to assertions.
 </p>
 
+<div class="note">Suggestion: add "should not attempt to define or ensure the 
+consistency of the assertions made by the same asserter."</div>
+
 <div class="xmpl">
 An alternative representation of the above file is a set of blocks in a hard disk.
 </div>
@@ -299,10 +302,20 @@
 -->
 
 <p>
-The following diagram provides a high level overview of the PROV-DM. Examples of a set of provenance assertions that conform to this schema are provided in the next section.</p>
+The following diagram provides a high level overview of the PROV-DM. Examples of a set of provenance assertions that conform to this schema are provided in the next section (note: cardinality constraints on the associations are 0..* unless otherwise stated)</p>
 
   <img src="overview.png" align="center"/>
 
+<div class="note">Khalid's note CHECK:  I note that an instance of Entity can be generated at most once by an 
+instance of ProcessExecution. I was always assuming that this hold. I am 
+no longer sure. To illustrate my doubt, consider the execution of a 
+workflow wf1, denoted by the process execution pe0, and consider the 
+process execution pe1 corresponding to the last activity actn in the 
+workflow wf1. Now, assume that pe1 generated an entity e. given the 
+relation between wf1 and actn, it follows that pe0 also generates e. (We 
+came across this in the example Taverna workflow that is being encoded 
+by Stian in the OWL provenance ontology).  </div>
+
 
 <p/>The model includes the following fundamental types:
 <ul>
@@ -450,7 +463,7 @@
 
 
 <p>
-UsedExpressions (described in <a href="#expression-Use">Section Use</a>) represent the event by which a file is read by a process execution. 
+Expressions of type <strong>UsedExpressions</strong> (described in <a href="#expression-Use">Section Use</a>) represent the event by which a file is read by a process execution. 
 
 Likewise, to describe the modalities according to which the various things are used by activities, a qualifier  (construct described in <a href="#expression-qualifier">Section Qualifier</a>) is introduced.  Illustrations of such qualifiers are: 
 <span class="name">e1</span> is used in the context of  <span class="name">pe1</span>'s <span clasfs="name">load</span> functionality; <span class="name">e2</span> is used by <span class="name">pe2</span> in the context of its attach functionality; <span class="name">e3</span> is used on the standard input by <span class="name">pe5</span>. 
@@ -1150,7 +1163,13 @@
 attributes of the entity expression identified by <span class="name">e1</span>.</a> [<a
   href="../ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#PIL:0007">PIL:0007</a>] </div>
 
-<div class='note'>Should this dependency of attributes be made explicit as argument of the derivation expression? By making it explicit, we would allow someone to verify the validity of the derivation expression.</div>
+<div class='note'>Should this dependency of attributes be made explicit as argument of the derivation expression? By making it explicit, we would allow someone to verify the validity of the derivation expression.<br/>
+Khalid's note: I was thinking of adding derivation-qualifier to wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1), 
+but instead of being a set of attribute-value, it can be specified by a 
+set of pair s of the form <b,B>, where b is a characterizing attribute 
+of e2 and B is the set of characterizing attributes of e1 that were used 
+to compute the value of b.<br/>Paolo: while keeping the mapping around may be a good idea, syntactically this seems to break the regular structure of attribute-value pairs. Maybe this requires one to think of a more general map data structure?
+</div>
 
 
 
@@ -1924,6 +1943,8 @@
 
 <p>Use, generation, and control expressions MUST contain a qualifier. A qualifier's sequence of name-value pairs MAY be empty. </p>
 
+<div class="note">aren't these two sentences contradictory></div>
+
 <p>The interpretation of a  qualifier is specific to the process execution expression it occurs in, which means that a same qualifier may appear in two different process execution expressions with different interpretations.   
 From this specification's viewpoint, a qualifier's interpretation is out of
 scope.</p>
@@ -2109,7 +2130,6 @@
 
 
 
-
 <section id="expression-Location">
 <h3>Location</h3>
 

--- a/model/README.txt	Thu Sep 22 09:19:46 2011 +0100
+++ b/model/README.txt	Thu Sep 22 15:46:07 2011 +0100
@@ -25,3 +25,5 @@
   this issue:
    - preliminaries section: to introduce conceputal model
    - section 6, PROV DM: refers to 'entity expression'
+
+-PM: addressing Khalid's comments

Binary file model/overview.png has changed