Common use of E T Clause in Contracts

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. 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. XxxxxxxO. Clearly, argument A attacks the arguments L and O.

E T. E (ƒ ∃m = (superconcept(publication), superconcept(Publicationsuperconcept(P ublication), n, ≡, ), m2 m2, −) D,F ES F (∃m = (property(publication), property(Publication), n, ≡, ), m2 m2, +) E IS G (ƒ ∃m = (range(hasPublisherrange(hasP ublisher), range(publishedBy), n, ≡, ), m3 , −) F,H IS H (Label(hasPublisherLabel(hasP ublisher) ≈T Label(publishedBy), m3, +) G T I (∃m = (superconcept(Publishersuperconcept(P ublisher), Organization, n, ≡, ), m7 m7, +) G ES J (Label(Magazine) ≈T Label(Magazine), m4m4 , +) T K (∃m = (siblingConcept(Magazine), siblingConcept(Magazine), n, ≡, ), m4 , +) ES L (∃m = (superconcept(Magazine), superconcept(Magazine), n, ≡, ), m4 m4, +) ES M (Label(Newspaper) ≈T Label(Newspaper), m5, +) T N (∃m = (siblingConcept(NewspapersiblingConcept(N ewspaper), siblingConcept(Newspaper), m5 m5, +) ES O (∃m = (superconcept(Newspapersuperconcept(N ewspaper), superconcept(Newspapersuperconcept(N ewspaper), n, ≡, ), m5 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.