--- a/model/comments/issue-331-Cheney.txt	Mon Apr 16 13:34:00 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-331-Cheney.txt	Mon Apr 16 13:49:08 2012 +0100
@@ -186,8 +186,7 @@
   > multiple occurrences of attribute names, why stop with these two?
   > 
 
-TODO
-We could  allow this for prov:label and prov:location too.
+TODO: We could  allow prov:label and prov:location to have multiple occurrences?
 Does this make sense for prov:location?
 
   > 

--- a/model/comments/issue-331-Jun.txt	Mon Apr 16 13:34:00 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-331-Jun.txt	Mon Apr 16 13:49:08 2012 +0100
@@ -121,8 +121,7 @@
   > rest of the document.
   > 
 
-TODO
-Delegation?
+TODO: Action on Jun to suggest alternatives
 
   > 
   > 
@@ -227,7 +226,7 @@
 Effect first, cause second. 
 That's the order that is followed consistently in the document.
 
-TODO: should we consider renaming?
+TODO: should we consider renaming memberOf to fit subject first, object second?
 
 
   > 
@@ -257,7 +256,7 @@
 Good point. Don't know how to address it. We can also drop this paragraph
 from the main DM and leave this to part 2. It would consistent with the rest.
 
-TODO
+TODO: mutability of collections
 
   > 
   > 
@@ -269,8 +268,8 @@
   > Entities seems to be the only relationship that is not specified in the 
   > components sections. Is this on purpose?
 
-I don't understand. Can you clarify?
-TODO
+TODO: Jun: I don't understand. Can you clarify?
+
 
   > 
   > 
@@ -302,7 +301,7 @@
   > as constraint that structurally well-formed descriptions are expected to 
   > satisfy." What does it trying to say?
 
-TODO
+TODO: To update once PROV-DM-CONSTRAINTS becomes more stable
 
   > 
   > "blundling up" -> bundling up?

--- a/model/comments/issue-331-Khalid.txt	Mon Apr 16 13:34:00 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-331-Khalid.txt	Mon Apr 16 13:49:08 2012 +0100
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@
   > whenever they are used in the text. - The figure given at the end of
   > Sectio 3.1 can be more helpful in guiding the reader if it placed
 
-TODO
+Examples was trimmed down, and reorganized.  Thoughts?
 
 
   > earlier in that section. - Talkiing about the figure the fact there

--- a/model/comments/issue-331-Tim.txt	Mon Apr 16 13:34:00 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-331-Tim.txt	Mon Apr 16 13:49:08 2012 +0100
@@ -517,7 +517,7 @@
   > and the paragraph. Perhaps a simple diagram would help follow. (but then this would be inconsistent with other definitions…)
   > 
 
-TODO
+TODO: ??? add a picture?
 
   > 
   > 
@@ -806,8 +806,8 @@
   >     association, start, and end"
   > 
 
-??? 
-TODO. I don't understand: linking what to what?
+
+TODO. Tim: I don't understand: linking what to what?
   > 
   > 
   > 

--- a/model/comments/issue-331-curt.txt	Mon Apr 16 13:34:00 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-331-curt.txt	Mon Apr 16 13:49:08 2012 +0100
@@ -219,7 +219,7 @@
   >    data structures such as a maps, dictionaries, or associative arrays."?
   > 
 
-TODO.
+TODO: need a sentence on generality of the collection structure.
 
   > 
   > 2.5 Simplified Overview Diagram

--- a/model/comments/issue-331-graham.txt	Mon Apr 16 13:34:00 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-331-graham.txt	Mon Apr 16 13:49:08 2012 +0100
@@ -345,7 +345,7 @@
   > I think accounts should have a section of their own, since they underpin the key
   > feature of supporting provenance0-of-provenance.
 
-TODO: To be addressed later. 
+TODO: To be addressed later: account.
 
   > 
   > However, I have a problem with the description "An account is an entity that
@@ -378,7 +378,7 @@
   > sense of this, so it's hard for me to suggest alternatives.
   > 
 
-TODO
+TODO: last teleconference ask Graham to raise issue and make suggestions
 
 Does renaming the relation "Responsibility/actedOnBehalfOf" help?
 And also remove the word accountable?
@@ -543,8 +543,7 @@
   > "A derivation is a transformation of an entity into another, a construction of
   > an entity *from* another, or an update of an entity, resulting in a new one."
 
-TODO
-yes, to look into. It would be nice to keep the same directionality for all of them.
+TODO: yes, to look into. It would be nice to keep the same directionality for all of them.
 
 
   > 
@@ -624,9 +623,9 @@
   > I think this section is completely redundant and out-of-place, and could be
   > removed without any loss.
 
-I think there is some value in stating there is an other document to
+TODO: I think there is some value in stating there is an other document to
 look at, and outline what it tackles.
-TODO?
+
 
 
   > 

--- a/model/prov-dm.html	Mon Apr 16 13:34:00 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/prov-dm.html	Mon Apr 16 13:49:08 2012 +0100
@@ -769,7 +769,7 @@
 
 
 
-<p>We paraphrase some PROV-DM descriptions, and illustrate them with the PROV-N notation.
+<p>We paraphrase some PROV-DM descriptions, express them with the PROV-N notation, and then depict them with a graphical illustration (see <a href="#prov-a-document1">Figure 1</a>).
 Full details of the provenance record can be found <a href="examples/w3c-publication3.pn">here</a>.</p>
 
 <ul>
@@ -821,7 +821,7 @@
 <div style="text-align: center; ">
   <figure>
   <img src="images/w3-publication3.png" alt="Provenance of a Document (1)" style="max-width: 98%; "/>
-<figcaption id="prov-a-document">Figure 2: Provenance of a Document (1)</figcaption>
+<figcaption id="prov-a-document1">Figure 2: Provenance of a Document (1)</figcaption>
   </figure>
 </div>
 
@@ -859,7 +859,7 @@
 </ul>
 
 <p>
-We now paraphrase some PROV descriptions, and illustrate them with the PROV-N notation.  We then follow them with a graphical illustration. Full details of the provenance record can be found <a href="examples/w3c-publication1.pn">here</a>.
+We now paraphrase some PROV descriptions, and express them with the PROV-N notation, and then depict them with a graphical illustration (see <a href="#prov-a-document2">Figure 2</a>). Full details of the provenance record can be found <a href="examples/w3c-publication1.pn">here</a>.
 
 <ul>
 <li>There was a document, a working draft on the recommendation track (<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#RecsWD">process:RecsWD</a>), which is an entity so that we can describe its provenance. Similar descriptions exist for all entities.
@@ -908,7 +908,7 @@
 <div style="text-align: center;">
   <figure>
   <img src="images/w3-publication1.png" alt="Provenance of a Document (2)" style="max-width: 90%; "/>
-<figcaption>Figure 3: Provenance of a Document (2)</figcaption>
+<figcaption id="prov-a-document2">Figure 3: Provenance of a Document (2)</figcaption>
   </figure>
 </div>