Comments on the Primer

Hi,

Here are some comments on the primer.

My main concern is with respect to the structure. I find that Section 2 
[1] delves into the definitions without giving the reader a chance to 
have a rough idea on what the elements of the models are and how they 
are related to each other. In this respect, PROV-DM, for instance, 
illustrates in Section 3 an overview of the model [2]. I am wondering if 
something similar can be done in the primer. Probably not using the 
names of the constructs in the model, but rather using the newspaper 
example elaborated in detail in Section 3, which by the way I think it 
is nicely articulated.

In Section 3, turtle is used for encoding the examples. It looks fine, 
but I am wondering if it would be better to use instead the examples 
listed in Appendix A, i.e., using the abstract syntax. In that case, the 
turtle examples may be moved to he Appendix.

I like the order in which the concepts and relationships were 
introduced. Derivation is however left till the end. I think that 
concept is quite important when talking about provenance. Would it be 
better to promote it by placing the definition after, let’s say, Use and 
Generation.?

In Section 2.3 [3],it is said that “Every Entity is created by an 
activity, which is called the generation of the entity”. Does that 
statement always hold? In other words, are all entities the results of 
an activity?

Thanks, khalid

[1] 
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html#intuitive-overview-of-prov-dm

[2] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html

[3] 
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/primer/Primer.html#use-and-generation