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.
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:
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.
REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS Any revisions or amendments to this Agreement must be made in writing and signed by both parties.
Actions and timeframes The parties agree the following actions and timeframes will be used:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 4 1. The conduct described in the Findings of Fact constitute grounds for disciplinary 5 action pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-3552(A)(1) and (3) and violate the provisions of A.R.S. § 32- 6 3501(9)(i) which states, “Any conduct or practice which is contrary to recognized standards of 7 ethics of the respiratory therapy profession or any conduct or practice which does or might 8 constitute a danger to the health, welfare or safety of the patient or the public.”
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS; DISCLOSURES [Landlord should note above any disclosures about the premises that may be required under Federal or Florida law, such as known lead-based paint hazards in the Premises. The Landlord should also disclose any flood hazards.] Landlord: LANDLORD (“LANDLORD”): Sign: Print: LANDLORD (“LANDLORD”): Sign: Print: Tenant: TENANT (“TENANT”): Sign: Print: TENANT (“TENANT”): Sign: Print: TENANT (“TENANT”): Sign: Print: TENANT (“TENANT”):
Exclusions and Limitations The aforementioned “Limited Warranty” does not apply to any Products which have been subjected to
CRIMINAL PROVISIONS AND SANCTIONS The Contractor agrees to perform the Agreement in conformance with safeguards against fraud and abuse as set forth by the H-GAC, the State of Texas, and the acts and regulations of any related state or federal agency. The Contractor agrees to promptly notify H-GAC of any actual or suspected fraud, abuse, or other criminal activity through the filing of a written report within twenty-four (24) hours of knowledge thereof. Contractor shall notify H-GAC of any accident or incident requiring medical attention arising from its activities under this Agreement within twenty-four (24) hours of such occurrence. Theft or willful damage to property on loan to the Contractor from H-GAC, if any, shall be reported to local law enforcement agencies and H-GAC within two (2) hours of discovery of any such act. The Contractor further agrees to cooperate fully with H-GAC, local law enforcement agencies, the State of Texas, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and any other duly authorized investigative unit, in carrying out a full investigation of all such incidents. The Contractor shall notify H-GAC of the threat of lawsuit or of any actual suit filed against the Contractor pertaining to this Agreement or which would adversely affect the Contractor’s ability to perform services under this Agreement.
GENERAL PROVISIONS AND RECITALS 12 1. The parties agree that the terms used, but not otherwise defined in the Common Terms and
