Conclusions and Recommendations The demonstration and evaluation process provided an opportunity to test community specific tools with a range of end users from the memory institution domain and to gain greater insight into both the current and future evolution of the SHAMAN prototypes for preservation, access and re-use. Xxxx et al. (2000) in their user evaluation study of the Alexandria Digital Library which incorporated the evaluation of a Web prototype by earth scientists, information specialists and educators raised four key questions in relation to their findings that SHAMAN may be well advised to consider, they are paraphrased here with our conclusions from the investigations. What have we learned about our target organizations and potential users? Memory institutions are most definitely not a homogenised group; their needs and requirements differ greatly across the domain. Representatives of the archives community are agreed on the benefits of SHAMAN‟s authenticity validation function. The representatives of government information services remained unconvinced as to the need or benefit of grid technologies or distributed ingest while librarians saw the value of grid access as an asset of the framework. What have we learned about the evaluation approach for digital preservation? Within the limits of the exercise, in terms of time-frame and resources, the approach adopted has generated useful information for the further development of demonstrators and for the development of the SHAMAN framework overall. What have we learned about the SHAMAN ISP1 demonstrator? Respondents to the evaluation questionnaires and the focus groups indicate that, overall, the presentation of the demonstrator worked effectively and that, in general, participants in the demonstration and evaluation events were able to understand the intentions of the demonstration and to apply the ideas presented to their own context. What have we learned about the applicability of the SHAMAN framework to memory institutions? Respondents to the questionnaires and participants in the focus groups readily identified the value of the SHAMAN framework to their own operations. The majority had not yet established a long-term digital preservation policy, but recognized the need. Generally, the concepts of distributed ingest and grid operations found favour. Virtually all practitioners in the focus groups, however, drew attention to need of a lower level demonstration that would be closer to their everyday preservation troubles, especially for digital preservation to be applied to non-textual materials, such as film, photographs and sound archives. In addition to the criteria suggested by Xxxx et al., we can add a further project-related question: What have we learned that has implications for the training and dissemination phase of the Project? It was not part of the remit of the demonstration and evaluation specifically to discover information of relevance to the training and dissemination function. However, a number of factors will affect the efficacy of any training programme in particular. o First, no common understanding of digital preservation can be assumed of the potential target audiences for training. Consequently, it is likely that self-paced learning materials will be most effective in presenting the SHAMAN framework. o Secondly, the aims of SHAMAN as a project must be conveyed clearly: specifically, that it is a kind of „proof-of-concept‟ project and is not intended to deliver a package of programs capable of being implemented by institutions. o Thirdly, it needs to be emphasised that the SHAMAN framework is not limited to text documents; it can be applied to materials of all kinds. However, the demonstrations relate to bodies of material that were actually available for use. o Fourthly, the existing presentation materials are capable of being adapted for use in training activities. o Finally, the target audiences will appreciate the possibility of online access to the demonstrator, which will need to have very great ease of access in order that people with diverse backgrounds are able to use it with equal facility. We believe that, overall, WP14 has met its aims and objectives in this demonstration and evaluation of ISP1. Valuable lessons have been learnt by all parties involved, which will be transferred to the evaluation of ISP2 in the coming months.
Certifications and Audits Company shall promptly complete and return to BNYM any certifications which BNYM in its sole discretion may from time to time send to Company, certifying that Company is using the Licensed System in strict compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. BNYM may, at its expense and after giving reasonable advance written notice to Company, enter Company locations during normal business hours and audit Company’s utilization of the Licensed System, the number of copies of the Documentation in Company’s possession, and the scope of use and information pertaining to Company’s compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. The foregoing right may be exercised directly by BNYM or by delegation to an independent auditor acting on its behalf. If BNYM discovers that there is any unauthorized scope of use or that Company is not in compliance with the aforementioned provisions, Company shall reimburse BNYM for the full costs incurred in conducting the audit.
EXCLUSIONS AND EXCEPTIONS 12.1 DBS shall not be responsible or liable to the Cardmember or any Cardholder for any loss or damage incurred or suffered as a consequence of:
REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS Any revisions or amendments to this Agreement must be made in writing and signed by both parties.
Exceptions to Informal Negotiations and Arbitration The Parties agree that the following Disputes are not subject to the above provisions concerning informal negotiations and binding arbitration: (a) any Disputes seeking to enforce or protect, or concerning the validity of, any of the intellectual property rights of a Party; (b) any Dispute related to, or arising from, allegations of theft, piracy, invasion of privacy, or unauthorized use; and (c) any claim for injunctive relief. If this provision is found to be illegal or unenforceable, then neither Party will elect to arbitrate any Dispute falling within that portion of this provision found to be illegal or unenforceable and such Dispute shall be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction within the courts listed for jurisdiction above, and the Parties agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of that court. CORRECTIONS There may be information on the Site that contains typographical errors, inaccuracies, or omissions, including descriptions, pricing, availability, and various other information. We reserve the right to correct any errors, inaccuracies, or omissions and to change or update the information on the Site at any time, without prior notice.
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AND ASSIGNMENTS (In 2011, the Florida Legislature passed statutory changes eliminating the granting of new Professional Service Contracts and prohibiting the School Board from following the requirements outlined in Sections 14.1, 14.1-1, 14.1-2, and 14.1-3 of the contract below. These provisions are therefore placed in abeyance until all legal challenges have been resolved. All other Sections beginning with 14.2 remain in full force and effect.)
- ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND INFORMAL DISCUSSION The employee shall discuss the issue with the immediate supervisor on an informal basis to identify and attempt resolution of the employee’s issue within ten (10) business days following the day the issue arose. The employee shall have the affirmative responsibility to inform the supervisor that the issue is being raised pursuant to this grievance procedure. The immediate supervisor shall meet with the employee, secure clarification of the issue, consider the employee’s proposed solution, and discuss possible alternative solutions and/or other administrative remedies. The immediate supervisor shall inform the department’s personnel office, and the personnel director shall inform the union of the grievance. The immediate supervisor shall respond verbally within ten (10) business days following the meeting with the employee. Failure of the supervisor to respond within the time limit shall entitle the employee to process the issue to the next step.
Determinations and Actions by the Board of Directors All actions, calculations and determinations (including all omissions with respect to the foregoing) which are done or made by the Board of Directors in good faith pursuant to this Agreement, shall not subject the Board of Directors to any liability to the holders of the Rights.
Third-Party Certifications and Audits Upon Customer’s written request at reasonable intervals, and subject to the confidentiality obligations set forth in the Agreement and this DPA, Data Processor shall make available to Customer (or Customer’s independent, third-party auditor that is not a competitor of Data Processor) a copy of Data Processor’s then most recent third-party audits or certifications, as applicable (provided, however, that such audits, certifications and the results therefrom, including the documents reflecting the outcome of the audit and/or the certifications, shall only be used by Customer to assess compliance with this DPA and/or with applicable Data Protection Laws and Regulations, and shall not be used for any other purpose or disclosed to any third party without Data Processor’s prior written approval and, upon Data Processor's first request, Customer shall return all records or documentation in Customer's possession or control provided by Data Processor in the context of the audit and/or the certification). With respect to audits and inspections, the parties shall discuss in good faith and agree on the scope, timing and details of the audits and inspections. To the extent that Data Processor’s obligations in this section involve more than 8 hours/man of work, Customer shall bear the costs and expenses of complying with this clause.
Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations: