--- a/model/ProvenanceModel.html	Thu Aug 04 23:24:48 2011 +0100
+++ b/model/ProvenanceModel.html	Fri Aug 05 00:02:45 2011 +0100
@@ -435,8 +435,7 @@
 <h3>Process Execution</h3>
 <p>A <dfn id="dfn-ProcessExecution">process execution</dfn> represents an identifiable activity, which performs a piece of work.</p>
 
-<p>The activity that a process execution represents has a duration, delimited by its start and its end; hence, it occurs over a continuous time interval. However, the process execution repre
-senting the activity need not mention time information, nor duration, because they may not be known.</p>
+<p>The activity that a process execution represents has a duration, delimited by its start and its end; hence, it occurs over a continuous time interval. However, the process execution representing the activity need not mention time information, nor duration, because they may not be known.</p>
 
 <p> A process execution assertion, noted <b>processExecution(id,rl,st,et)</b>:
 <ul>
@@ -453,8 +452,17 @@
 </pre>
 </p>
 
-<p>A process execution is not an entity, because ... </p>
-<div class='note'>Formulate justification.  Should we or or not adopt FRBR definitions? </div>
+<p>A process execution is not an entity. Indeed, an entity represents
+a thing that exists in full at any point in its characterization
+interval, persists during this interval, and preserves the
+characteristics that makes it identifiable.  Alternatively, an
+activity in something that happens, unfolds or develops through time,
+but is typically not identifiable by the characteristics it exhibits at
+any point during its duration.</p>
+
+
+
+<div class='note'>Elaborate justification.   </div>
 
 
 
@@ -473,9 +481,9 @@
 
 
 
-<p>A Generation assertion, noted <b>isGeneratedBy(b,pe,r,t)</b>:
+<p>A Generation assertion, noted <b>isGeneratedBy(e,pe,r,t)</b>:
 <ul>
-<li> refers to an entity <b>b</b>, which represents the characterized thing that is created;
+<li> refers to an entity <b>e</b>, which represents the characterized thing that is created;
 <li> refers to a process execution <b>pe</b>;
 <li> contains a <a href="#concept-Role">role</a> <b>r</b>;
 <li> MAY contain a "generation time" <b>t</b>, the time at which the characterized thing was created.</p>
@@ -527,10 +535,10 @@
 <p><dfn id="dfn-Use">Use</dfn> represents the consumption of a characterized thing by an activity.</p>
 
 
-<p>A Use assertion, <b>uses(pe,b,r,t)</b>:
+<p>A Use assertion, <b>uses(pe,e,r,t)</b>:
 <ul>
 <li> refers to a process execution <b>pe</b>;
-<li> refers to an entity <b>b</b>, representing the characterized thing that is used;
+<li> refers to an entity <b>e</b>, representing the characterized thing that is used;
 <li> contains a <a href="#concept-Role">role</a> <b>r</b>;
 <li> MAY contain a "use time" <b>t</b>, the time at which the characterized thing was used.</p>
 </ul>
@@ -705,11 +713,10 @@
 
 <section id="concept-IVP-of">
 
-<h3>IVP of</h3>
+<h3>Is Complement Of</h3>
 
-<div class="note">We propose to replace the relation  "IVP of" with "complement of". The new term is used in the text below to "test" and see how it fits...</div>
 
-<p><dfn id="IVP-of">IVP of</dfn> is a relationship between two characterized things asserted to have compatible characterization over some continuous time interval.<br/>
+<p><dfn id="IVP-of">Is Complement Of</dfn> is a relationship between two characterized things asserted to have compatible characterization over some continuous time interval.<br/>
 
 The rationale for introducing this relationship is that in general, at any given time there will be multiple representations of a characterized thing, which are reflected in assertions possibly made by different asserters. In the example that follows, suppose thing "Royal Society" is represented by two asserters, each using a different set of attributes. If the asserters agree that both representations refer to "The  Royal Society", the question of whether any correspondence can be established between the two representations arises naturally. This is particularly relevant when (a) the sets of properties used by the two representations overlap partially, or (b) when one set is subsumed by the other. In both these cases, we have a situation where each of the two asserters has a partial view of "The  Royal Society", and establishing a correspondence between them on the shared properties is beneficial, as in case (a) each of the two representation <em>complements</em> the other, and in case (b) one of the two (that with the additional properties) complements the other.
 <p/>
@@ -729,7 +736,7 @@
 -->
 </p>
 
-<p>An IVP assertion is denoted <b>ivpOf(B,A)</b>, where A and B are two entities.
+<p>An isComplementOf assertion is denoted <b>isComplementOf(B,A)</b>, where A and B are two entities.
 
 <p>
 <pre class="example">
@@ -742,13 +749,13 @@
 entity(rs_m2,[membership: "300", year: "1945"])
 entity(rs_m3,[membership: "270",  year: "2010"])
 
-ivpOf(rs_m3, rs_l2)
-ivpOf(rs_m2, rs_l1)
-ivpOf(rs_m2, rs_l2)
-ivpOf(rs_m1, rs_l1)
+isComplementOf(rs_m3, rs_l2)
+isComplementOf(rs_m2, rs_l1)
+isComplementOf(rs_m2, rs_l2)
+isComplementOf(rs_m1, rs_l1)
 
-ivpOf(rs_l1, rs)
-ivpOf(rs_l2, rs)
+isComplementOf(rs_l1, rs)
+isComplementOf(rs_l2, rs)
 </pre>
 </p>
 
@@ -917,10 +924,10 @@
 
 <p> <dfn id="dfn-Revision">Revision</dfn> represents the creation of a characterized thing considered to be a variant of another. Deciding whether something is made available as a revision of something else usually involves an agent who is responsible for declaring that the former is variant of the latter. </p>
 
-<p>An assertion isRevisionOf, noted <b>isRevisionOf(b2,b1,ag)</b>:
+<p>An assertion isRevisionOf, noted <b>isRevisionOf(e2,e1,ag)</b>:
 <ul>
-<li> refers to an entity <b>b2</b>, denoting a newer version of a thing;
-<li> refers to an entity <b>b1</b>, denoting a older version of a thing;
+<li> refers to an entity <b>e2</b>, denoting a newer version of a thing;
+<li> refers to an entity <b>e1</b>, denoting a older version of a thing;
 <li> MAY refer to a responsible agent <b>ag</b>.
 </ul>
 </p>
@@ -977,9 +984,8 @@
 
 
 
-<div class="note"> It should be possible for asserters to annotate the container with a description of the justification for the assertions it contains, as well as additional meta-information, such as authorship of the assertions.</div>
 
-<div class='issue'>Asserter needs to be defined. This is <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/51">ISSUE-51</a>.</div>
+<div class='pending'>Asserter needs to be defined. This is <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/51">ISSUE-51</a>.</div>
 
 </p>