"A complete Dependency Web includes all transitive dependencies; that is, A -> B, B -> C implies A -> C. "
This is not the case, A does not depend on C by your definition. There is no reference to C in A, in either the source or class file.
I would further argue, that your definition of dependency is very weak. And your example graphs are far from usefull artifacts.
You define "depends on" as simply reffering to another component in the source (you don't even consider the class file, but you should). Your definition does not account for the actuall demands that A will place on B. There are many contracts that exists between components, and dealing only with "reffers to" relationship is not usefull at all. You will typically end up with a highly interconnected graph. Espically if you draw the graph at the class level, as you have done.
Drawing such dependency graphs at a higher level, sucha as package, or even web application level will yield more usefull information. But like I said, these diagrams don't provide much information about contract and protocol. And I find there use highly suspect for this reason.