E T. E (ƒ ∃m = (superconcept(publication), superconcept(Publication), n, ≡, ), m2 , −) D,F ES F (∃m = (property(publication), property(Publication), n, ≡, ), m2 , +) E IS G (ƒ ∃m = (range(hasPublisher), range(publishedBy), n, ≡, ), m3 , −) F,H IS H (Label(hasPublisher) ≈T Label(publishedBy), m3, +) G T I (∃m = (superconcept(Publisher), Organization, n, ≡, ), m7 , +) G ES J (Label(Magazine) ≈T Label(Magazine), m4, +) T K (∃m = (siblingConcept(Magazine), siblingConcept(Magazine), n, ≡, ), m4 , +) ES L (∃m = (superconcept(Magazine), superconcept(Magazine), n, ≡, ), m4 , +) ES M (Label(Newspaper) ≈T Label(Newspaper), m5, +) T N (∃m = (siblingConcept(Newspaper), siblingConcept(Newspaper), m5 , +) ES O (∃m = (superconcept(Newspaper), superconcept(Newspaper), n, ≡, ), m5 , +) ES P (Label(Organization) ≈T Label(Organization), m6, +) T V with the respective type value . The arcs represent the attacks A, whereas the direc- tion of the arcs represents the direction of the attack. By instantiating the general VAF according to their own preferences, Ag1 and Ag2 obtain two possible argumentation frameworks, (a) and (b). In the argumentation framework (a), we have two arguments against m1, and one for it: – A is against the correspondence m1, since none of the super-concepts of the O1: Press are mapped to any super-concept of O2: Periodical. – B argues for m1 because two sub-concepts of O1: Press, (O1: Magazine and O1: Newspaper), are mapped to two sub-concepts of O2: Periodical, (O2: Magazine and O2: Newspaper), as established by m4 and m5. – C argues against m1, because Press and Periodical do not have any lexical sim- ilarity. Moreover, we have six arguments supporting the correspondences m4, m5 and m6. K, L and M justify the mapping m4, since, respectively, the labels of O1: Magazine and O2: Magazine are lexically similar; their siblings are mapped, as established by m5 and their super-concepts; O1: Press and O2: Periodical are mapped by m1. There is a similar situation for the arguments M , N and X. Xxxxxxx, argument A attacks the arguments L and O.
E T. T shall seek approval of the transactions from Clark County on Tuesday, October 31, 2000; from the Nevada Xxxxxg Control Board on November 8, 2000; and from the Nevada Gaming Commission on November 16, 2000; provided that as to the meeting on November 16, 2000 if the Nevada Gaming Commission does not include the approval of the transaction contemplated by the Agreement as amended hereby at such meeting (a "Gaming Delay") E-T-T shall seek such approval at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Nevada Gaming Commission (the "Next Meeting");
E T seq.. In the event there is conflict between the terms of the DPA and any other writing, such as service agreement or with any other bid/RFP, terms of service, privacy policy, license agreement, or writing, the terms of this DPA shall apply and take precedence. Except as described in this paragraph herein, all other provisions of any other agreement shall remain in effect.
