--- a/model/comments/wd6-Graham.txt	Mon May 28 17:13:53 2012 +0100
+++ b/model/comments/wd6-Graham.txt	Mon May 28 17:30:44 2012 +0100
@@ -19,6 +19,9 @@
   > later in the document I see no point in also including them in section
   > 2.  So my proposals focus more on explaining how the concepts work
   > together and not repeating the actual definitions.
+
+
+
   > 
   > As I reflect on what I've read, I think it might be worth linking each
   > of the core structure concepts to the corresponding subsection in
@@ -68,9 +71,18 @@
   > have used - OPM, OPMV, Provenir, PML all use broadly similar
   > structures)
   > 
+
+Goof point, we should cite http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/wiki/Provenance_Vocabulary_Mappings
+
   > Para 4 and list: I would have the derivations component immediately
   > follow on from entities and activities (or folded in with those).
   > More detail later in discussion of core structures.
+
+I personally would prefer to see 
+  component 2: derivation
+  component 3: agent/responsibility.
+
+
   > 
   > Para 5 and 6: I think these should be run together.  I find that para
   > 5 on its own doesn't convey anything useful.  I would suggest even
@@ -122,6 +134,9 @@
   > table (Table 2): relations on the diagram use values from the "Name"
   > column of the table, but types use values from the "Concepts" column.
   > 
+
+I am aware of this. Not sure how to address this.
+
   > I think it's a little confusing that there are named "concepts" and
   > (sometimes) different names for the types and relations.  This is
   > behind my earlier comment suggesting that table 2 be moved top later
@@ -131,6 +146,9 @@
   > in the rest of section 2, then those names can also be used to locate
   > the corresponding sections in the reference part of the document.  In
   > this arrangement, I think table 2 is redundant.
+
+
+
   > 
   > 
   > == Section 2.1.1 ==