diff --git a/APCCM2017_Stanger.tex b/APCCM2017_Stanger.tex
index cbc6ea4..6017533 100644
--- a/APCCM2017_Stanger.tex
+++ b/APCCM2017_Stanger.tex
@@ -1130,7 +1130,7 @@
 
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 
-If we compare Figure~\ref{fig-sig-s} with Figure~\ref{fig-transform-edge-moves}, we can see that the transformed SIG for \(\SC{3}'\) now has the same node and edge structure as the SIG for \(\SC{1}\). We still need to remove the totality annotations from the four remaining trivial selection edges, but even when this is done, we do not achieve the desired isomorphism, as the projection edges \(\TT{S} \LabelledEdge{\sigedge{03}}{\RelProject} \TSSC\) and \(\TT{\NLS} \LabelledEdge{\sigedge{02}}{\RelProject} \TSSNL\) have different annotations from the corresponding edges in the SIG for \(\SC{1}\). Strictly speaking this means that the information capacities of \(\SC{1}\) and \(\SC{3}\) are incomparable, but the structural differences are so small that it is probably reasonable to say that the information capacity of \(\SC{3}\) is less than that of \(\SC{1}\) (i.e., \Dominates{\SC{1}}{\SC{3}}). Regardless, it is clear that view updates based on this pair of schemas will be problematic.
+If we compare Figure~\ref{fig-sig-s} with Figure~\ref{fig-transform-edge-moves}, we can see that the transformed SIG for \(\SC{3}'\) now has the same node and edge structure as the SIG for \(\SC{1}\). We still need to remove the totality annotations from the four remaining trivial selection edges, but even when this is done, we do not achieve the desired isomorphism, as the projection edges \(\TT{S} \LabelledEdge{\sigedge{03}}{\RelProject} \TSSC\) and \(\TT{\NLS} \LabelledEdge{\sigedge{02}}{\RelProject} \TSSNL\) have different annotations from the corresponding edges in the SIG for \(\SC{1}\). Strictly speaking this means that the information capacities of \(\SC{1}\) and \(\SC{3}\) are incomparable, but the structural differences are small enough that it is probably reasonable to infer that the information capacity of \(\SC{3}\) is less than that of \(\SC{1}\) (i.e., \Dominates{\SC{1}}{\SC{3}}). Regardless, it is clear that view updates based on this pair of schemas will be problematic.
 
 Incidentally, if we created a fourth sub-schema \(\SC{4} = \{\NLS\}\) and compared this with \(\SC{1}\), the result would be similar to \(\SC{3}\).
 
@@ -1141,7 +1141,7 @@
 \section{Conclusion \& future work}
 \label{sec-conclusion}
 
-\noindent In this paper we have shown how to use the concept of relative information capacity and the schema intension graph (SIG) formalism to characterise information equivalence with respect to view updating. The results of our analysis of Date's restriction view example \cite{Date.C-2013a-View} are consistent with his findings. The information capacities of \(\SC{1} = \{S\}\) and \(\SC{2} = \{\LS,\NLS\}\) are equivalent, so it should be possible to effectively propagate view updates between \(\SC{1}\) and \(\SC{2}\), regardless of the configuration of views and base relvars. Conversely, the information capacity of \(\SC{3} = \{\LS\}\) is at best less than that of \(\SC{1}\), implying that there are updates that cannot be propagated between \(\SC{1}\) and \(\SC{3}\).
+\noindent In this paper we have shown how to use the concept of relative information capacity and an extension of the schema intension graph (SIG) formalism to characterise information equivalence with respect to relational view updating. The results of our analysis of Date's restriction view example \cite{Date.C-2013a-View} are consistent with his findings. The information capacities of \(\SC{1} = \{S\}\) and \(\SC{2} = \{\LS,\NLS\}\) are equivalent, so it should be possible to effectively propagate view updates between \(\SC{1}\) and \(\SC{2}\), regardless of the configuration of views and base relvars. Conversely, the information capacity of \(\SC{3} = \{\LS\}\) is not comparable with that of \(\SC{1}\), implying that there are updates that cannot be propagated between \(\SC{1}\) and \(\SC{3}\).
 
 Our analysis shows the importance of clearly identifying all explicit and implicit constraints that can be propagated from the base schema \(\SC{0}\) to its sub-schemas. Omission of constraints could lead to a different SIG structure that might not be comparable, or might lead to an erroneous conclusion about a schema's information capacity relative to another.