### Table 1. Design rules. The rules marked with * represent families of rules, oriented to solve the same type of problem with dif- ferent design strategies.

2003

"... In PAGE 2: ... Alike the designer behaviour, rules take into account the conceptual and source schemas as well as the design guidelines and mappings, and then perform a schema design transformation. Table1 shows a table with the proposed set of rules. Table 1.... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 1. Design rules. The rules marked with * represent families of rules, oriented to solve the same type of problem with dif- ferent design strategies.

2003

"... In PAGE 2: ... Alike the designer behaviour, rules take into account the conceptual and source schemas as well as the design guidelines and mappings, and then perform a schema design transformation. Table1 shows a table with the proposed set of rules. Table 1.... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 2: Original New York and Norwegian Problems { Capacity Formulation

1998

"... In PAGE 22: ... We next present a key to these tables. Capacity Formulation: In Table2 , the size of problems are speci ed by the number of nodes jV j; the number of arcs jAj , and number of demand pairs jKj. XLP is the lower bound obtained at the root node of the branch-and-cut tree.... ..."

Cited by 43

### Table 1: Nomenclature for Generic Optimization Models Design Problem Formulation a simple design parameters

### Table 3: Set theoretic formulation of problems in a declarative diagnoser

"... In PAGE 6: ...Table 3: Set theoretic formulation of problems in a declarative diagnoser Table3 shows for all possible pairs of query/answer used in a declarative diagnoser the corre- sponding problem in a set theoretic setting. 4 Approximating the Intended Semantics Using the exact intended semantics for automatic validation and diagnosis is in general not realistic, since the exact semantics can be only partially known and it is usually too inconvenient to express it formally.... ..."

### Table 3: Set theoretic formulation of problems in a declarative diagnoser

"... In PAGE 6: ...Table 3: Set theoretic formulation of problems in a declarative diagnoser Table3 shows for all possible pairs of query/answer used in a declarative diagnoser the corre- sponding problem in a set theoretic setting. 4 Approximating the Intended Semantics Using the exact intended semantics for automatic validation and diagnosis is in general not realistic, since the exact semantics can be only partially known and it is usually too inconvenient to express it formally.... ..."

### Table 3: Set theoretic formulation of problems in a declarative diagnoser

"... In PAGE 6: ...Table 3: Set theoretic formulation of problems in a declarative diagnoser Table3 shows for all possible pairs of query/answer used in a declarative diagnoser the corre- sponding problem in a set theoretic setting. 4 Approximating the Intended Semantics Using the exact intended semantics for automatic validation and diagnosis is in general not realistic, since the exact semantics can be only partially known and it is usually too inconvenient to express it formally.... ..."

### Table 3 A Formulation Table for the Reactor Problem

1999

"... In PAGE 14: ... Next, we organize data in the formulation table, which contains the complete information the solution algorithm will require. Table3 is the formulation table Table 3 A Formulation Table for the Reactor Problem... ..."

Cited by 17

### Table 7: A formulation of the `Aset apos; problem

1996

"... In PAGE 18: ...3 The apos;Aset apos; problem Let us nally look at the theorem which states that the set A = fx 2 Njde ned( (x; x)) ^ (x; x) gt; xg is not recursive (an exercise from [DSW94], page 94). The formalization of this problem is listed in Table7 . In the formal proof in Figure 7 we assume that the set A is recursive and then prove a contradiction by diagonalization.... ..."

Cited by 2

### Table 3: A formulation of the `Total apos; problem

1996

"... In PAGE 9: ... The informal proof of this theorem is given in [DSW94], page 90. This theorem is formalized in Table3 and a formal proof is given in Figure 3. TOTdef1 8nN TOT(n) ! totcomp( xN (n; x)) TOTdef2 8fN!Res totcomp(f) ! 9nN TOT(n) ^ f = xN (n; x) totcomp1 8fN!Res totcomp(f) $ 8xN de ned(f(x)) totcomp2 8fN!Res totcomp(f) ! totcomp( xN f(x) + 1) r.... ..."

Cited by 2