>>13535884it's not my choice, I have to go with Rosen. So far I have found it pretty good (with the exception of the Solution's Manual), it's just a pity that this notation seems ambiguous.
For example, in my opinion
>>13535695 is wrong and the evaluation of Q_1 is:
(p(1,1) v p(1,2) v p(1,3) ... v p(1,n))& (p(2,1) ... v p(2, n)) & ... & (p(n,1) v p(n, 2) v ... v p(n,n)).
As for Q_2, I'd have to think a bit more about this, so far it seems like
1. Ordinary logical presidence wherein disjunction is after conjunction, doesn't apply to their 'Big' variations
2. The notation is ambiguous and the precedence isn't set