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.
Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:
Representations and Recommendations Unless otherwise stated in writing, neither Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc, nor its brokers or licensees have made, on their own behalf, any representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to any element of the Property including but not limited to, the legal sufficiency, legal effect, or tax consequences of this transaction. Any information furnished by either party should be independently verified before that party relies on such information. Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc. recommends that Buyer consult its attorneys and accountants before signing this Agreement regarding the terms and conditions herein and that Seller satisfy itself as to the financial ability of Buyer to perform.
Hiring Decisions Contractor shall make the final determination of whether an Economically Disadvantaged Individual referred by the System is "qualified" for the position.
Manufacturer's Recommendations All work or materials shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and requirements. The Contractor shall obtain the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements, for its use at the Site in executing the Work, copies of bulletins, circulars, catalogues, or other publications bearing the manufacturer’s titles, numbers, editions, dates, etc. If the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements are not available, the Contractor shall request installation instructions from the Design Professional.
Final Decisions The Contracting Officer will issue a final decision as required by 33.211 if—
Written Decisions Decisions rendered at Level One which are unsatisfactory to the aggrieved person and all decisions rendered at Levels Two and Three of the grievance procedure shall be in writing setting forth the decision and the reasons therefore, and shall be transmitted promptly to all parties in interest and to the Association.
Modifications and Waivers No provision of this Agreement shall be modified, waived or discharged unless the modification, waiver or discharge is agreed to in writing and signed by the Executive and by an authorized officer of the Company (other than the Executive). No waiver by either party of any breach of, or of compliance with, any condition or provision of this Agreement by the other party shall be considered a waiver of any other condition or provision or of the same condition or provision at another time.
Finality of Decisions There shall be no appeal from any Arbitration Board's decision. Each such decision shall be final and binding on the Union and its members, the employee or employees involved, and the Company. The Union will discourage any attempt of its members, and will not encourage or co-operate with any of its members in any appeal to any Court or Labour Board from a decision of an Arbitration Board.
Decisions The General Assembly shall be free to act on its own initiative to formulate proposals and take decisions in accordance with the procedures set out herein. In addition, all proposals made by the Executive Board shall also be considered and decided upon by the General Assembly. The following decisions shall be taken by the General Assembly: Content, finances and intellectual property rights - Proposals for changes to Annexes 1 and 2 of the Grant Agreement to be agreed by the Funding Authority - Changes to the Consortium Plan - Modifications to Attachment 1 (Background Included) - Additions to Attachment 3 (List of Third Parties for simplified transfer according to Section 8.2.2) - Additions to Attachment 4 (Identified Affiliated Entities)] Evolution of the consortium - Entry of a new Party to the consortium and approval of the settlement on the conditions of the accession of such a new Party - Withdrawal of a Party from the consortium and the approval of the settlement on the conditions of the withdrawal - Identification of a breach by a Party of its obligations under this Consortium Agreement or the Grant Agreement - Declaration of a Party to be a Defaulting Party The identification of the breach is a first step in accordance with the procedure in 4.2 before declaring a Party as a Defaulting Party. - Remedies to be performed by a Defaulting Party - Termination of a Defaulting Party’s participation in the consortium and measures relating thereto - Proposal to the Funding Authority for a change of the Coordinator - Proposal to the Funding Authority for suspension of all or part of the Project - Proposal to the Funding Authority for termination of the Project and the Consortium Agreement Appointments On the basis of the Grant Agreement, the appointment if necessary of: - Executive Board Members
