Good job Stian!
I am not sure if my feedback has been sent correctly through the UI as I did not get any notification.
Maybe next time we can use Domeo to annotate the document directly.
Here are my few thoughts:
1) at the beginning where you say 'In this blog post we would like to discuss Versioning as modelled by PAV' I would make sure to anticipate that this is related to the current release and it will be enriched very soon. Otherwise my impression as reader is that we are re-inventing 'hot water' and they will not even finish to read the post. Or at least that has been my reaction so far :)
2) 'The property pav:version gives a human-readable version string'. The original idea was to leave it free and let systems developers decide on how to use it. So I would argue that 'red', 'blue'... are human readable but not human understandable as versions. Can we say just 'labelled'? Soften it a bit... labelled 'usually with label that are more for humans'... not sure. If I label it 1.2-b1x0 is that for humans? It is probably not for 'humans' but for a few of them that know the key to read this.
3) On the same lines: 'a computer seeing these three resources would not know they are ordered 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, or not even that they are related at all'. 'a computer' is vague. It could be changed to 'a computer, without additional knowledge,' or in a way that is clear that we are talking about a 'semantic system'. If I use '1','2','3' a computer could understand the ordering as long as the algorithm guesses we are using integers or numbers. I would argue that most versioning schemes could be consumed that way....
4) In this post, and especially in the next one, I would add a list of the contributors to the model at the end. It is provenance and it is right to recognized who participated to the discussion.