### Table 5: General rules

1989

"... In PAGE 14: ... general rules for (higher order) intuitionistic logic, where variables range over values, while terms denotes computations (see Table5 for the most relevant rules)10 the basic inference rules for computational models (see Table 6) the inference rules for product types (see Table 7) the inference rules for functional types (see Table 8) Remark 4.1 A comparison among c-, v- and p-calculus shows that: the v-calculus proves less equivalences between -terms, e.... ..."

Cited by 369

### Table 5: General rules

1989

"... In PAGE 14: ... general rules for (higher order) intuitionistic logic, where variables range over values, while terms denotes computations (see Table5 for the most relevant rules)10 the basic inference rules for computational models (see Table 6) the inference rules for product types (see Table 7) the inference rules for functional types (see Table 8) Remark 4.1 A comparison among c-, v- and p-calculus shows that: the v-calculus proves less equivalences between -terms, e.... ..."

Cited by 369

### Table 2: The Generality Predicate T ooGeneral

"... In PAGE 6: ... In addition, comparisons between two concepts a and b are excluded from consideration, if they have a least common superconcept which is too general (cf. Table2 ; e.g.... ..."

### Table 6: General Inference Rules

1991

"... In PAGE 12: ...7 Given a signature for the programming language, let be the signature for the metalanguage with the same base types and a function p: 1 ! T 2 for each command p: 1 * 2 in . The translation from programs over to terms over is de ned by induction on raw programs: x [x]T (let x1(e1 in e2) (letT x1(e1 in e2 ) p(e1) (letT x(e1 in p(x)) [e] [e ]T (e) (letT x(e in x) The inference rules for deriving equivalence and existence assertions of the simple programming language can be partitioned as follows: general rules (see Table6 ) for terms denoting computations, but with variables ranging over values; these rules replace those of Table 2 for many sorted monadic equational logic rules capturing the properties of type- and term-constructors (see Table 7) after interpretation of the programming language; these rules replace the additional rules for the metalanguage given in Table 4.... ..."

Cited by 585

### Table 5 Generalization result.

1998

Cited by 73

### Table 1: The ??general language

"... In PAGE 3: ... We consider programs which might have existentially or universally quanti ed negative queries in the bodies of the clauses, which we call ??general programs (? standing for 9 or 8). The syntax for ??general queries, ??general goals and ??general programs is described in Table1 , where A is an atom. The notions of literal and selection rule are extended as follows.... ..."

### Table 1. Dictionary generalizations.

2002

"... In PAGE 2: ... The aim was to extend the coverage of the original set, while at the same time trying to mini- mize any decrease in accuracy. Table1 shows some examples of name generalizations. We used this generalized dictionary-based tagger for supplying a pre-tagged input to some of the learning methods that will be discussed in the following sec- tions.... ..."

Cited by 7

### Table 2: The generalized table

"... In PAGE 7: ... Therefore, we have to generalize some of the EK elds before the table can be released. Table2 is the result after changing the height and weights to intervals and generalizing the blood type to ABO, where ABO denotes that A, B and O are the possible blood types in that entry. 3.... ..."