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.
Certification of Funds; Budget and Fiscal Provisions; Termination in the Event of Non-Appropriation This Agreement is subject to the budget and fiscal provisions of the City’s Charter. Charges will accrue only after prior written authorization certified by the Controller, and the amount of City’s obligation hereunder shall not at any time exceed the amount certified for the purpose and period stated in such advance authorization. This Agreement will terminate without penalty, liability or expense of any kind to City at the end of any fiscal year if funds are not appropriated for the next succeeding fiscal year. If funds are appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year, this Agreement will terminate, without penalty, liability or expense of any kind at the end of the term for which funds are appropriated. City has no obligation to make appropriations for this Agreement in lieu of appropriations for new or other agreements. City budget decisions are subject to the discretion of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. Contractor’s assumption of risk of possible non-appropriation is part of the consideration for this Agreement. THIS SECTION CONTROLS AGAINST ANY AND ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT.
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:
Exclusions and Reservations A. Nothing in this Article will be construed as authorizing Company to conduct any business on the Premises, Common Use Areas, or Airport separate and apart from the conduct of its permitted uses as authorized in this Agreement.
ELIGIBILITY OF E-BIDDERS 1.1. Parties who are interested to participate in public auction (“E-Bidders”) may do so by logging on to EHSAN AUCTIONEERS SDN. BHD. Website and register as a member.
GENERAL PROVISIONS AND RECITALS 12 1. The parties agree that the terms used, but not otherwise defined in the Common Terms and
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.
Judicial Council 's Obligation Subject to Availability of Funds A. The Judicial Council's obligation under this Agreement is subject to the availability of authorized funds. The Judicial Council may terminate the Agreement or any part of the Contract Work, without prejudice to any right or remedy of the Judicial Council, for lack of appropriation of funds. If expected or actual funding is withdrawn, reduced, or limited in any way prior to the expiration date set forth in this Agreement, or in any Amendment hereto, the Judicial Council may, upon written Notice to the Contractor, terminate this Agreement in whole or in part. Such termination shall be in addition to the Judicial Council's rights to terminate for cause or other than for cause, as set forth herein.
Modifications and Rectifications to Coverage 1. A Party may make rectifications of a purely formal nature to its coverage under this Chapter, or minor amendments to its Schedules in Annex XVI, provided that it notifies the other Parties in writing and no Party objects in writing within 45 days from the receipt of the notification. A Party that makes such a rectification or minor amendment need not provide compensatory adjustments to the other 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.