### Table 1: Operational Semantics.

1998

"... In PAGE 4: ... The set of evaluation contexts is given by E ::= [ ] j (E e)r j (v E)r j (proji E)r j (inji E) j hE; ei j hv; Ei j (protectir E) j (case E of inj1(x) ) e1 j inj2(x) ) e2)r Note that this de nes a left-to-right, call-by-value, deterministic reduction strategy. The basic rules for the operational semantics appear in Table1 . In the rules, we use an operation for increasing the security properties on terms: given = (r; ir), ir0 is the security property (r t ir0; ir t ir0).... In PAGE 7: ... A state is a nite partial function from typed locations ls into values. The starting point of the operational semantics for the extended calculus is the collection of simple redex rules given previously in Table1 . Again we lift these rules to arbitrary terms via e ! e0 E[e] ! E[e0] where E is understood to be the extended de nition of contexts given above.... In PAGE 14: ...heorem A.5 (Subject Reduction) Suppose ; ` e : s and e ! e0. Then ; ` e0 : s. Proof: Note that e = E[e1], where e1 ! e2 via one of the rules in Table1 , and e0 = E[e2]. A simple induction on evaluation contexts, using Lemma A.... ..."

Cited by 192

### Table 3: Semantic similarity by item.

1995

Cited by 345

### Table 3: Semantic similarity by item.

1995

Cited by 345

### Table 3: Semantics of expressions.

2002

"... In PAGE 4: ... It is easy to show if T U then [[T]] [[U]]. Table3 gives the semantics of expressions, dependent on an arbitrary method environment in [[MEnv]]. Table 4 gives the semantics of commands.... ..."

Cited by 74

### Table 2. Semantic domains.

2002

"... In PAGE 5: ...able 2. Semantic domains. Methods are associated with classes, in a method envi- ronment, rather than with instances. For this reason the se- mantic domains, given in Table2 , are rather simple. There are no recursive domain equations to be solved.... ..."

Cited by 81

### Table 1: Transition semantics

1996

"... In PAGE 23: ... It is generated by the following grammar: R ::= y(x):P P ::= 0 ( x) P P jP if b then P else P yhzi R ! R P j2J Rj ? P j2J Rj V B As for the language P, names x range over N, and y; z over V which includes the special names t and f. The operational semantics of P+ is provided by the rules in Table1 and Table 3. We now introduce the remaining components for the factorization diagram: an annota tion encoding A[[ ]], a attening encoding F[[ ]], and the intermediate sublanguage A .... In PAGE 44: ...3.2, it su ces to regard the case S = P j2J Rj where, according to the rules in Table1 , there is only one subcase. case C-INP For k 2 J, we have P j2J Rj ykhzi ????! Pkfz=xg and there is always a weakly simulating sequence by READ and COMMIT A[[ P j2J Rj ]] = ? P j2J A[[ Rj ]] ; ; ykhzi ????! ? P j2J A[[ Rj ]] (k7!z) ; ?? ! A[[ Pk ]] k j ? P j2J A[[ Rj ]] ; k amp; A[[ Pk ]] k = A[[ Pkfz=xg ]] where the amp; holds due to Lemma 6.... In PAGE 46: ...U][[ A ]] = P j2J yj(x):U][[ Pj ]] where, according to the rules in Table1 , there is only one subcase for generating transitions: C-INP. For k 2 J, we have P j2J yj(x):U][[ Pj ]] ykhzi ????! U][[ Pk ]]fz=xg and there is always a weakly simulating sequence by READ and COMMIT A = ? P j2J Rj ; ; ykhzi ????! ? P j2J Rj (k7!z) ; ?? ! Pk k j ? P j2J Rj ; k =: A0 where U][[ A0 ]] = U][[ Pk ]]fz=xg is satis ed.... ..."

Cited by 90

### Table 1: Transition semantics

1996

"... In PAGE 21: ... It is generated by the following grammar: R ::= y(x):P P ::= 0 ( x) P P jP if b then P else P yhzi R ! R P j2J Rj ? P j2J Rj V B As for the language P, names x range over N, and y; z over V which includes the special names t and f. The operational semantics of P+ is provided by the rules in Table1 and Table 3. We now introduce the remaining components for the factorization diagram: an annotation encoding A[[ ]], a attening encoding F[[ ]], and the intermediate sublanguage A .... In PAGE 39: ...3.2, it su ces to regard the case S = P j2J Rj where, according to the rules in Table1 , there is only one subcase. case C-INP For k 2 J, we have P j2J Rj ykhzi ????? ! Pkfz=xg and there is always a weakly simulating sequence by READ and COMMIT A[[ P j2J Rj ]] = ? P j2J A[[ Rj ]] ; ; ykhzi ????? ! ? P j2J A[[ Rj ]] (k7!z) ; ??! A[[ Pk ]] k j ? P j2J A[[ Rj ]] ; k amp; A[[ Pk ]] k = A[[ Pkfz=xg ]] where the amp; holds due to Lemma 6.... In PAGE 40: ...he simpli cation discussed in Section A.3.2, it su ces to regard the case A = ? P j2J Rj V B where, by de nition of U], there are three subcases. case (initial) V = ; = B : Then, with Rj = yj(x):Pj, U][[ A ]] = P j2J yj(x):U][[ Pj ]] where, according to the rules in Table1 , there is only one subcase for generating transi tions: C-INP. For k 2 J, we have P j2J yj(x):U][[ Pj ]] ykhzi ????? ! U][[ Pk ]]fz=xg and there is always a weakly simulating sequence by READ and COMMIT A = ? P j2J Rj ; ; ykhzi ????? ! ? P j2J Rj (k7!z) ; ??! Pk k j ? P j2J Rj ; k =: A0 where U][[ A0 ]] = U][[ Pk ]]fz=xg is satis ed.... ..."

Cited by 90

### Table 2: Semantics of ALN -Concepts Syntax Semantics

1998

"... In PAGE 3: ... An interpretation I consists of a domain dom(I) and a mapping assigning a subset CI of dom(I) (the ex- tension of C) to every atomic concept C as well as a binary relation RI over dom(I) (the extension of R) to every atomic role R. This interpretation is ex- tended to ALN -concepts as de ned in Table2 where RI(d) := fe 2 dom(I) j (d; e) 2 RIg denotes the set of R-successors of d in I. For convenience we write Table 2: Semantics of ALN -Concepts Syntax Semantics... ..."

Cited by 12

### Table 1: Semantic roles and semantic entailments

"... In PAGE 19: ...15 For the purposes of this paper, we employ the attributes listed in table 1. Table1 gives the attribute names, the semantic relation that licenses each attribute, and the (disjunctive) lexical entailments de ning each attribute. Although some of the set of entailments which disjunctively de ne a semantic attribute might be pro tably grouped into more general entailments (the entailments characteristic of the actor attribute, for example, might reduce to a general entailment roughly para- phrasable as `has control over the unfolding of the situation apos;), the linking theory we present below does not require it.... ..."