### Table 1. Baseline values for the structural constraints

2005

"... In PAGE 3: ... This consists of the maximum displacement in the vicinity of the access holes, the eigenvalue buckling behaviour and the stress-related performance. The baseline maximum displacement in the vicinity of the access holes is used as a limiting displacement constraint ( Table1 ) to avoid potential clashing problems with service equipment. The buckling load is assessed by determining the normalised eigenvalue buckling factor which must be greater than unity.... ..."

### Table 2: Correspondence between structural constraints and structural rules.

1996

"... In PAGE 4: ...e. those satisfying all the structural rules of Table2 , and are captured by the corresponding LKE systems, i.e.... In PAGE 10: ...Modal Constraints commutativity x y v y x seriality !x v?x contraction x x v x re exivity !x v x expansion x v x x transitivity !x v!!x monotonicity x v x y symmetry x v?!x Euclideanism ?x v?!x directedness !?x v?!x Let C be, as above, a set of structural rules and/or modal axioms, and let C0 be the corresponding constraints (according to the correspondence outilined in Table2 and Table 6). We call LKE(C0) the basic LKE system obtained by augmenting the basic labelling algebra (see page 10) with the additional constraints in C0, and we denote by `LKE(C0) the deducibility relation associated with this system.... In PAGE 19: ... Hence, 3A 2 x and V (3A; x) = T . Let C = S [ M, where S is an arbitrary subset of the structural rules in Table2 and let M is an arbitrary subset of the modal axioms in Table 6. We denote by `C the smallest MIL satisfying all the rules and axioms in C.... ..."

Cited by 8

### Table 6: Randomly generated networks with no structural constraints: Bound=16.

1998

"... In PAGE 37: ... A hypothesis consistent with the data is that, in general, the more structured and more con- strained a network is, the smaller the minimal, equivalent, dispatchable network is. The networks at Table 2 and Table6 both have relatively loose constraints (the bound of the edges at table 2 were chosen randomly and uniformly from the interval [0, 10000] while the ones at Table 6 from the interval [0,15]). However, the average ratio of output edges per nodes is 2.... In PAGE 37: ... A hypothesis consistent with the data is that, in general, the more structured and more con- strained a network is, the smaller the minimal, equivalent, dispatchable network is. The networks at Table 2 and Table 6 both have relatively loose constraints (the bound of the edges at table 2 were chosen randomly and uniformly from the interval [0, 10000] while the ones at Table6 from the interval [0,15]). However, the average ratio of output edges per nodes is 2.... ..."

### Table 2. Corresponding regions of the secondary and super- secondary structure constraints.

2006

Cited by 2

### Table 4.2: Supertag ambiguity with and without the use of structural constraints

### Table 4.2: Supertag ambiguity with and without the use of structural constraints

### Table 2 Supertag ambiguity with and without the use of structural constraints.

### Table 3: Randomly generated networks with no structural constraints for Bound=2.

1998

### Table 4: Randomly generated networks with no structural constraints for Bound=4.

1998

### Table 5: Randomly generated networks with no structural constraints for Bound=8.

1998