Disaggregation Clause Samples
The Disaggregation clause defines the process by which bundled goods, services, or obligations can be separated into their individual components. In practice, this means that if a contract covers multiple products or services grouped together, either party may request that these be unbundled for purposes such as pricing, performance, or termination. This clause is particularly useful in complex agreements where flexibility is needed, as it allows parties to address issues or make changes related to specific components without affecting the entire contract, thereby ensuring adaptability and targeted problem-solving.
Disaggregation. Except as permitted by Section 7.02(b) hereof, preserve and maintain its existence, corporate or otherwise, material rights (statutory and otherwise) and franchises except where the failure to maintain and preserve such rights and franchises would not materially adversely affect the financial condition, properties, prospects or operations of such Borrower.
Disaggregation how reporting of the target will be broken down and measured by groups of Aboriginal and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Islander people (for example males/females, or geographical areas). This allows us to understand where progress is being made and where greater effort is needed.
Disaggregation. In line with the classifications stipulated above, survey results can be disaggregated according to these general classes of institutions: • Type / Domain of institution / organisation: museum, library, etc. • Total annual budget of institution / organisation: <€10,000; €10,000-50,000, etc. • For international analysis/comparison purposes: Country where the institution is located.
3.8 A procedure for the assimilation of new indicators
Disaggregation. Each report under this subsection shall disaggregate the information relating to households provided under subparagraphs (A) through (F) of paragraph (1) by the gender, race, and ethnicity of the primary applicant for assistance in such households.
Disaggregation. An important provision for the objectives of SHARE is that given in EN 1998-1 3.2.21 (5), which relates to the controlling earthquake scenario for a given hazard level at a site. “When the earthquakes affecting the shape of the site are generated by widely differing sources, the possibility of using more than one shape of spectra should be considered to enable the design action to be adequately represented. In such circumstances, different values of ag will normally be required for each type of spectrum and earthquake” (EN 1998-1 3.2.2.1 (5)). Compliance with this provision clearly indicates the need for a means of identifying the controlling earthquake scenario or scenarios for a site. The most common means of achieving this is via disaggregation, possibly implemented as an online web database in the manner of USGS (2008) and INGV (2009). There is certainly a degree of criticism that can be levelled at the EN 1998-1 representation of the elastic response spectrum, and the anchoring to PGA. Whilst the introduction of a two- spectrum system does, in a crude manner, allow the code to accommodate differences between smaller and large magnitude events, this introduces another problem. Selection of the Type 1 or Type 2 spectrum is made on the basis of MS, where MS is the surface-wave magnitude of the controlling earthquake scenario. As such, for the code to be effectively implemented it is necessary to know the controlling earthquake scenario. Whilst simple in concept, this information may not be easy to constrain when mapping hazard over a region as large as Europe. The absence of clear provisions for obtaining the controlling earthquake scenario is common to all design codes. This may, in part, be a deliberate approach to allow a designer scope to use their judgement as to how an appropriate controlling scenario is defined. There may be precedent for defining the controlling earthquake as the maximum earthquake considered possible within a source region, the characteristic earthquake or perhaps a large historical event. An alternative approach, and one that has become increasingly common amongst seismic hazard analyses, is the use of disaggregation. This methodology, described in more detail shortly, closely reconciles the scenario earthquake with the probabilistic hazard formulation. It does so by considering the contribution of each event (or collection of events within a pre-defined magnitude and distance bin) to the probability of the ground motion at a g...
Disaggregation. Within 10 Business Days following occurrence -------------- thereof, written notice of any disaggregation of spectrum as permitted under (S)7.06 hereof, setting forth in reasonable detail the terms of such disaggregation.
Disaggregation. To validate the OpenQuake hazard engine there are up to date two exercises implemented as JUnits: • Test Case Set 1 – case 5 - exercise to test one Magnitude Frequency Distribution (MFD), specifically the truncated exponential model (defined by Mmin = 5.0 and Mmax = 6.5) and the computation of hazard from a fault source. The hazard is calculated for seven sites and there is no truncation of the ground motion distribution (sigma = 0.00).
Disaggregation. Herein a common and well-known algorithm for areal interpolation is used - the Binary dasymetric technique. The method is based on ancillary data and divides source zones on populated and unpopulated parts. The population is distributed only to populated zones. The disaggregation in this example is performed in two scales of source zones – Level 5 (available Localization units), Level 4 (Populated places). Assumptions: Population and sub-population totals within a given geographic unit (source zone) are assumed to be distributed evenly. The population density is estimated for every source zone. Area for overlaid geometry Total populated Area for Source zone Population Density for Source zone The Final step is to sum-up grids from all previous steps. (Dissolve by GRID_ID; METHD_CL = {A, D, M} where ‘A’= ‘A’+‘A’; ‘D’= ‘D’+‘D’; ‘M’=’A’+’D’) ANALYZE Bulgaria has population resident and concentrated in smaller or bigger populated places and not scattered all over the territory thus a good behavior of the dasymetric binary method for distribution from detailed settlement areas layer was expected. Also the bigger settlements have geocoded address data, so the disadvantage of the binary method in these areas is not so feasible. Territorial Units Populated places Population % population distributed by aggregation % area covered count Structure - % count Structure - % % % 0 181 3.4 0 0.0 0 16.0 1 - 99 1627 30.7 58979 0.8 4.2 100 - 499 1939 36.6 501828 6.8 5.2 51.2 500 - 999 753 14.2 531184 7.2 8.0 1 000 - 4 999 665 12.5 1260320 17.1 20.1 26.8 5 000 - 9 999 60 1.1 425892 5.8 43.4 10 000 - 19 999 33 0.6 446214 6.1 35.4 3.6 20 000 - 49 999 25 0.5 792874 10.8 67.0 50 000 - 99 999 12 0.2 876356 11.9 92.5 2.3 100 000 + 7 0.1 2470923 33.6 89.5 A total number of 113388 grids cover the surface area of Bulgaria (111 002 km2), 23618 (20.8%) of them are inhabited. Population per grid Number of grids Grid population % Population aggregated 1-4 3264 8513 5.7% 5-19 5128 54336 4.1% 20-199 10046 778650 8.1% 200-499 2820 888854 14.3% 500-4999 2054 2676026 48.5% 5000+ 306 2958191 92.2% So we use different approaches to grid statistical data. In fact, hybrid approach of producing population grid is in combining grids produced with different approaches and techniques. The main question is “hybrid” quality. How to measure the result-grid quality? One of the answers may be - the more (X, Y) data for point-based proxy geometries, the better quality of the result. That‟s why it is good to u...
Disaggregation. In making allocations of Net Profit or Net Loss -------------- pursuant to this ARTICLE VIII, the Management Committee is authorized to separate these aggregate amounts into their components of items of gross income, gain, loss or deduction, and allocate such components separately (i. e., allocate items of income and gain as Net Gain, and items of loss or deduction as Net Loss) in order to further the intent of the provisions of the Agreement.
Disaggregation. Reseller may sublicense (i.e., resell) UC but may not under any circumstances separate or otherwise disaggregate the bundled service constituting UC other than for the purpose of selling Trunks (either cloud or premise). If Reseller sublicenses (i.e., resells) UC to Reseller’s customer(s), (i) Reseller will be listed as the primary account for all purposes with respect to UC, and