### TABLE 8- The theoretical model

### Table 3-1: Measuring Modeling Tractability Via Model Discrepancy Duration Bytes Transmitted Bytes Received Number of Observations,

### Table 7 Average running times for very small and small instances and all tractabilities

"... In PAGE 28: ... the first case of equations (19) and (21), respectively) is performing worse than pure random sampling. The average running times of the best-performing algorithms are provided by Table7 . All al- gorithms were coded in C and implemented on an IBM RS/6000 model 550.... ..."

### Table 7 Average running times for very small and small instances and all tractabilities

"... In PAGE 26: ... the first case of equations (19) and (21), respectively) is performing worse than pure random sampling. The average running times of the best-performing algorithms are provided by Table7 . All al- gorithms were coded in C and implemented on an IBM RS/6000 model 550.... ..."

### Table 9: Average Running Times for Very Small and Small Instances and All Tractabilities

"... In PAGE 36: ... the first case of equations (31) and (33), respectively) is performing worse than pure random sampling. The average running times of those algorithms performing well with respect to at least one of the performance measures are reported in Table9 where all entries are given in terms of milli- seconds. All algorithms were coded in C and implemented on an IBM RS/6000 model 550.... ..."

### Table 9: Average Running Times for Very Small and Small Instances and All Tractabilities

"... In PAGE 35: ... the first case of equations (31) and (33), respectively) is performing worse than pure random sampling. The average running times of those algorithms performing well with respect to at least one of the performance measures are reported in Table9 where all entries are given in terms of milli- seconds. All algorithms were coded in C and implemented on an IBM RS/6000 model 550.... ..."

### Table 1: Tractable classes

2000

"... In PAGE 3: ... 2 Tractability Results We continue by defining four classes of disjunctive relations TA; : : : ; TD and show that their corresponding satisfiabil- ity problems are tractable. The classes are defined as fol- lows: TA = ?A _ A, TB = ?B _ B, TC = ?C _ C and TD = D and the exact definitions of the sets of relations can be found in Table1 . The classes TA and TB are exten- sions of the algebras A14 and A10 as defined by Broxvall and Jonsson (1999).... ..."

Cited by 3

### Table 1: Tractable classes

"... In PAGE 3: ... 2 Tractability Results We continue by defining four classes of disjunctive relations T A ;:::;T D and show that their corresponding satisfiabil- ity problems are tractable. The classes are defined as fol- lows: T A = , A #02 _#01 #03 A , T B = , B #02 _#01 #03 B , T C = , C #02 _#01 #03 C and T D =#01 #03 D and the exact definitions of the sets of relations can be found in Table1 . The classes T A and T B are exten- sions of the algebras A 14 and A 10 as defined by Broxvall and Jonsson (1999).... ..."

### Table 3. Theoretical comparison results.

"... In PAGE 4: ...s 11.31. The execution time is given in the third column. No ef- fort has been directed to optimize algorithms in terms of execution speed. The theoretical computational complexity for both methods is given in Table3 , where C6 by C6 is the original image size, C8 is the number of nodes at the finest level, CA by CA is the search range at the finest mesh level, C1 is the number of iterations at the hexagonal matching procedure, CB is the search step size at the finest mesh level, and C4 is the number of levels. This table provides approxi- mate number of addition operations involved in the motion estima- tion stage.... In PAGE 4: ... This table assumes a regular mesh as opposed to content-based mesh to make the calculations tractable. From the results in Table ?? and the comparisons in Table3 , we can claim that the proposed method performs equally or slightly better in terms of PSNR and runs significantly faster. The latter is a direct consequence of pyra- mid image representation.... ..."

### Table 17 JSOW Comparative Process Measurements

"... In PAGE 65: ...A - SOW - T:G amp; C - WP - Web Meet B - RFP - B:G amp; C - WP - Web Meet C - Plan - M:G amp; C - WP - Web Meet D - Propose - B:G amp; C - WP - Web Meet E - Clear - E:G - - Meet F - Target - E:C - - Meet G - Negotiate - B:G amp; C - WP - Web Meet H H H HH HH Figure 12 JSOW Web-centric Process Model This Web-centric means of enabling redesign through electronic communication is delineated in Figure 12 with corresponding measurements summarized in Table17 for comparison with the baseline alpha contracting process. Notice IT-Communication fraction would increase to 0.... ..."