### Table 1. Logics for belief fusion

"... In PAGE 9: ... Therefore, the results in this paper fill a gap in the previous work. We believe that the logics, which are summarized in Table1 , are applicable to reasoning in multi-agent... ..."

### TABLE 1 Classification of Methods for the Management of Imperfect Knowledge Type of imperfection Representation method Management method Modal logic Symbolic beliefs Truth maintenance systems Autoepistemic logic

### Table 1. Previous results: complexity and compactability of belief revision operators.

"... In PAGE 3: ...elevance, i.e. revising two logical equivalent knowledge bases T and T0 with a formula P always yields the same set of models. Also in this case model checking and inference become harder than in PL [15, 8] (see also Table1 ). This is a rst motivation for investigating compilability of belief revision into PL.... In PAGE 3: ... So, it can be used for inference but not for model checking. In Table1 we summarize both the complexity and the compactability results proved for several belief revision operators, both model and syntax based (Ginsberg apos;s and WIDTIO). It is interesting to observe that some revision operators and CIRC have sim- ilar properties.... In PAGE 6: ... We emphasize that the compactness of belief revision operators, in general, does not seem to depend on either the complexity of inference and model check- ing or the previously known compactability results. For instance, Winslett apos;s and Weber apos;s ones have the same complexity (see Table1 ) while they are ordered in terms of space e ciency (see Fig. 1).... In PAGE 6: ...erms of space e ciency (see Fig. 1). Additionally, Dalal apos;s and Weber apos;s, that have di erent complexity, can be compiled one into the other, instead. The re- ducibility of those two operators to CIRC also gives an intuitive explanation of their compactability properties (see Table1 ) which, actually, are the same as CIRC Due to lack of space some of the proofs of the above results will be omitted or only sketched in this extended abstract. 1.... ..."

### Table 3 - Unload sequence nominal states E Left justify oUnload Sequence Stateo to match entries below

"... In PAGE 109: ... The numbers in parantheses at the end of the sentences are confusing. This might be more readable as a numbered list Quantum 65 PDF 28 1st sentence after Table3 . Remove phrase quot;at a minimum quot; Quantum 66 PDF 29 section 4.... In PAGE 111: ... quot;Logical Unit Not Ready, Operation In Progress quot; should be all caps. Quantum 123 PDF 55 1st paragraph after Table3 9, 2nd sentence. quot;Autoload Mode quot; when refering to the field name in the Control mode page should be small caps.... In PAGE 121: ...epresents ... quot; inside the table. STK 12 - PDF 28, Table3 - Move information following this table, such as quot;unload state (a) reflects .... ..."

### Tableau Algorithm for the Clique Guarded Fragment (C Hirsch amp; S Tobies); The Complexity of Reasoning with Boolean Modal Logics (C Lutz amp; U Sattler); Outline of a Logic of Action (K Segerberg); Belief, Names, and Modes of Presentation (R Ye amp; M Fitting); and other papers. Readership: Researchers and advanced students in mathematical logic, philosophical logic, computer science logic, artificial intelligence and formal linguistics.

### Table 4. Examples of Linguistic Structures and their Logical Representation

"... In PAGE 8: ...representation. Table4 shows examples of linguistic structures and their representation in FOL. The meaning of each predicate depends of the sentence from what it is derived.... In PAGE 13: ...Table4 , for example, the ST representation would be as shown in Table 6, as we have just seen. This ST representation is the mathematical representation of the example of simple inheritance modelling shown in Table 2, which is the modelling pattern initially proposed in section 2 for the linguistic structure concerned, thus justifying the validity of that modelling pattern.... ..."

### Table 1: Syntactic forms, typing conditions and beliefs for valid atomic S-Expressions

"... In PAGE 12: ... Tables 1 and 2 present the syntactic forms of the S-expressions definable in our framework and the typing conditions that these expressions have to satisfy in order to be valid. More specifically, Table1 presents the syntactic forms of, and the type validity conditions for the so-called quot;atomic S- expressions quot; (these are expressions consisting of only one of the predicates introduced in Section 2). The type validity condition determines the valid type(s) for the element(s) that the predicate of an expression refers to.... In PAGE 12: ... Table 2 presents the syntactic forms of, and the validity conditions for quot;non atomic S- expressions quot; (these are logical combinations of atomic S-expressions). Thus, for instance, according to Table1 the S-expression gen- c(elem) is valid only if the type of the model element denoted by elem is the UML meta- class Class. The complete grammar for S- expressions is given in [10].... ..."