--- a/model/comments/issue-409-daniel.txt	Wed Jun 27 11:39:57 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/issue-409-daniel.txt	Wed Jun 27 12:38:47 2012 +0100
@@ -25,6 +25,9 @@
   > involved in producing a piece of data or thing.  I think that:
   > Provenance is information about entities, activities and people
   > involved in producing a piece of data or thing is easier to read.
+
+Removed comma after people.
+
   > 
   > STATUS:
   > 
@@ -38,9 +41,15 @@
   >     well this sentence. Provenance description is referred to a lot of
   >     times along the document, but the only definition I found was this
   >     sentence. Please clarify.
+
+Just said "OWL2"
+
   > 
   > 2.1 Prov Core structures
   > Typo: the title of figure 1 is not placed under the figure.
+
+Fixed.
+
   > 
   > "In the Core of PROV, all relations are binary".
   > 
@@ -48,6 +57,9 @@
   > e1) and used(a1, e1, [ prov:role="inpu1" ]) different?  This is what
   > it looks when you read this line, and in DM both usages are the same
   > relation. Thus I suggest to remove the binary vs n-ary distinction.
+
+I don't understand why.  We agreed that the core is formed of binary relations.
+
   > 
   > 2.1.1
   > 
@@ -55,6 +67,9 @@
   > entities and have some fixed aspect."  I would change sentence to "In
   > PROV, things we want to describe the provenance of are called
   > entities.", since you are not saying what a "some fixed aspect" is.
+
+This definition was agreed by the WG.
+
   > 
   > In usage definition, the activity could not have been affected by the
   > enitity. I remember discussing in PROV-O scenarios where an activity
@@ -63,6 +78,12 @@
   > possible. Therefore I suggest to remove the "affected" part of the
   > definition. This also applies for section 5.1.4.
   > 
+
+
+Khalid had a similar comment. The definition is with respect to a
+given usage.
+
+
   > (After example 3)
   > "This is answered by considering that a single artifact may correspond
   > to several entities;" We have not talked about artifact until now. I
@@ -70,6 +91,10 @@
   > befor in the examples.  We find the artifact reference again at the
   > end of the paragraph : "This breadth of provenance allows descriptions
   > of interactions between physical and digital artifacts"
+
+
+Artifact is to be understood with its usual meaning.
+
   > 
   > 2.2.2
   > 
@@ -78,20 +103,30 @@
   > having many provenance descriptions about a resource, and a client
   > that wants to see who did them in order to filter them by creator or
   > date of creation)
+
+OK, updated.
   > 
   > Section 3
   > 
   > "PROV-N optional arguments need not be specified:"
   > ->
   > typo: PROV-N optional arguments need not TO be specified:
+
+No change required.
+
   > 
   > 4.1
   > Caption of figure 2 is out of place. Also happens in figure 3 (section 4.2).
+
+Fixed.
   > 
   > 5
   > 
   > Table 5. I think there is a typo with Revision, Quotation and Primary
   > Source. They do not appear as relationships.
+
+I am not sure what you refer to. Figure 5 is for component 1.
+
   > 
   > Figure 5: the title is not centered under the figure.
   > 
@@ -99,11 +134,15 @@
   > The third component of PROV-DM is concerned with: derivations of entities from others, ...
   > I suggest to change slightly the sentence:
   > The third component of PROV-DM is concerned with: derivations of entities from other entities, ...
+This was correct, but OK.
   > 
   > Caption of Figure 6 is not under the figure.
   > Caption of Figure 7 is not under the figure.
   > 
   > Typo in Example 34: instead of using prov:role, the example uses prov:type
+
+role is not allowed on attribution.
+
   > 
   > Figure 8: the caption is not under the figure.
   > 
@@ -133,14 +172,25 @@
   > this in the mailing list, so I don't disagree on having it.  I just
   > think that it overcomplicates the model, and I don't think I'll use
   > it.
+
+Please see revised version.
+
   > 
   > Figure 10: the caption is not under the figure.
   > 
   > Example 54: in the example, it should be Le louvre instead of Le Louvres, right?
+
+yes.
   > 
   > Note after Example 57: No, I don't think prov:encoding is necessary. That is domain specific.
+
+removed
+
   > 
   > I don't think table 8 is necessary. It would be enough to say that the
   > prov:values are compatible with the xsd stanndard.
+
+
+table 8 removed as per F2F3 decision
   > 
   > 

--- a/model/prov-dm.html	Wed Jun 27 11:39:57 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/prov-dm.html	Wed Jun 27 12:38:47 2012 +0100
@@ -395,7 +395,7 @@
 
     <section id="abstract">
 <p>
-Provenance is information about entities, activities, and people,
+Provenance is information about entities, activities, and people
 involved in producing a piece of data or thing, which can be used
  to form assessments about its quality, reliability or trustworthiness.
 PROV-DM is the conceptual data model that forms a basis for the W3C
@@ -1069,16 +1069,20 @@
 <span class="glossary-ref" data-ref="glossary-bundle"  data-withspan="true">
 </span>
 
-<div class="anexample conceptexample" id="bundle-example">
 <p>
 For users to decide whether they can place their trust in
-a resource, they may want to analyze the resource's provenance, but also determine
+something, they may want to analyze its provenance, but also determine
 the agent its provenance is attributed to, and when it was
 generated. In other words, users need to be able to determine the provenance of provenance.
 Hence, provenance is also
 regarded as an entity (of type Bundle), by which provenance of provenance can then be
 expressed.
 </p>
+
+<div class="anexample conceptexample" id="bundle-example">
+<p>
+In a decision making situation, decision makers may be presented with the same piece of knowledge, issued by multiple sources.  In order to validate this piece of knowledge, decision makers can consider its provenance, but also the provenance of their provenance, which may help determine whether it can be trusted.
+</p>
 </div>
 </section>
 
@@ -1974,7 +1978,7 @@
 
 
 
-<p>The second component of PROV-DM is concerned with: <a title="derivation">derivations</a> of <a title="entity">entities</a> from others; derivation subtypes <a>Revision</a>, <a>Quotation</a>, and <a>Primary Source</a>; derivation-related <a>Influence</a>. 
+<p>The second component of PROV-DM is concerned with: <a title="derivation">derivations</a> of <a title="entity">entities</a> from other entities and derivation subtypes <a>Revision</a>, <a>Quotation</a>, and <a>Primary Source</a>.
  <a href="#figure-component2">Figure 6</a> depicts the third component
 with PROV core structures in the yellow area, including two classes
 (<a>Entity</a>, <a>Activity</a>) and binary association
@@ -3499,7 +3503,7 @@
 </pre>
 </div>
 
-<p>We note that PROV-DM <dfn title="dfn-time">time instants</dfn> are defined according to xsd:dateTime [[!XMLSCHEMA11-2]].</p> 
+<p>We note that PROV-DM <dfn title="time">time instants</dfn> are defined according to xsd:dateTime [[!XMLSCHEMA11-2]].</p> 
 
 
 <div class="anexample" id="anexample-time">