Post Search Considerations Sample Clauses

Post Search Considerations. There was only one potential match in the simplified example above. However, if there had been more compatible providers in the library, the algorithm would continue with additional steps. There are several issues of preference in the example above. If Provider1 had been a suitable match the responseTime is guaranteed to be less than 14 seconds with a very high penalty of 15 USD. Provider 2 offers a much faster responseTime of 9 seconds but a much lower penalty of 1 USD. Some users may desire efficiency while others may wish to merely satisfy the objective while sacrificing some efficiency for the potential of a high penalty payoff. Since this is a personal user preference, the user may define a rule which states that a guarantee isPreferred if the penalty is over some threshold. The user may also wish to state that if the penalties are the same then faster speeds are preferred. During the matching process, the preference score for each alternative is incremented each time a satisfactory guarantee has the isPreferred assertion. When multiple providers are able to satisfy the basic needs of a consumer, the results are ranked by highest preference scores so that the user may consider the most preferred providers first. This example showed the reasoning Table 4. Summary of Guarantees from Provider Library Provider1.wsag Provider2.wsag (Provider2a and Provider2b)
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Post Search Considerations. There was only one potential match in the simplified example above. However, if there had been more compatible providers in the library, the algorithm would continue with additional steps. There are several issues of preference in the example above. If Provider1 had been a suitable match the responseTime is guaranteed to be less than 14 seconds with a very high penalty of 15 USD. Provider 2 offers a much faster responseTime of 9 seconds but a much lower penalty of 1 USD. Some users may desire efficiency while others may wish to merely satisfy the objective while sacrificing some efficiency for the potential of a high penalty payoff. Since this is a personal user preference, the user may define a rule which states that a guarantee isPreferred if the penalty is over some threshold. The user may also wish to state that if the penalties are the same then faster speeds are preferred. During the matching process, the preference score for each alternative is incremented each time a satisfactory guarantee has the isPreferred assertion. When multiple providers are able to satisfy the basic needs of a consumer, the results are ranked by highest preference scores so that the user may consider the most preferred providers first. This example showed the reasoning process while illustrating the flexibility provided by the user defined rules. Table 5. SWAPS Matching Guarantee Fact/Rule Assertion 1 Consumer G4 PercentageLessThanT hreshold Conversion Rule qos:responseTime < 14 seconds 2 Provider1 G1 Semantics of “less” SLO1 isEquivalent SLOc4 3 Provider1 G1 User Preference Rule weekday notSuitable Provider1’s G4 notSuitable 4 Provider1 G2 Semantics of “less” SLO2 isEquivalent SLOc2 5 Provider1 G3 Semantics of “true” SLO3 isEquivalent SLOc3 6 Provider1 G4 Semantics of “greater” SLOc1 isStronger SLO4 7 Provider2a G1 and G2 Domain rule for “qos:ResponseTime” Provider2a-G5-SLO13: qos:responseTime less 9 secs., Qualifying Condition:numRequests <1000 AND numUsers<500 Penalty: 1 USD 8 Provider2a G5 Semantics of “less” SLO13 isStronger SLOc4 9 Provider2a G3 Semantics of “less” SLOc2 isStronger SLO7 10 Provider2b G1 and G2 Domain rull for “qos:ResponseTime” Provider2b-G5-SLO14: qos:responseTime less 9 secs., Qualifying Condition:numRequests <1000 AND numUsers<500 Penalty: 1 USD 11 Provider2b G5 Semantics of “less” SLO14 isStronger SLOc4 12 Provider2b G3 Semantics of “less” SLO11 isEquivalent SLOc2 13 Provider2b G4 Semantics of “true” SLO12 isEquivalent SLOc3
Sample 1

Related to Post Search Considerations

  • Additional Considerations For each mediation or arbitration:

  • General Considerations a. All reports, drawings, designs, specifications, notebooks, computations, details, and calculation documents prepared by Vendor and presented to the Board pursuant to this Agreement are and remain the property of the Board as instruments of service.

  • Special Considerations Special considerations in determining allowability of compensation will be given to any change in a non-Federal entity's compensation policy resulting in a substantial increase in its employees' level of compensation (particularly when the change was concurrent with an increase in the ratio of Federal awards to other activities) or any change in the treatment of allowability of specific types of compensation due to changes in Federal policy.

  • Additional Consideration Retrocessionaire agrees to pay under the Inuring Retrocessions all future premiums Retrocedant is obligated to pay pursuant to the terms of the Inuring Retrocessions to the extent that such premiums are allocable to Retrocessionaire in the manner set forth in Exhibit E hereto, and not otherwise paid by Retrocessionaire and to indemnify Retrocedant for all such premiums paid directly by Retrocedant, net of any ceding commissions and similar amounts paid by Third Party Retrocessionaires to Retrocedant.

  • Ethical Considerations The study will be conducted in accordance with ethical principles founded in the Declaration of Helsinki. The Institutional Review Board (IRB)/Independent Ethics Committee (IEC) will review all appropriate study documentation in order to safeguard the rights, safety and well-being of the subjects. The study can only be conducted at study sites where IRB/IEC approval has been obtained. The protocol, informed consent form, Investigator’s Brochure, advertisements (if applicable), and all other forms of information given to subjects will be provided to the IRB/IEC by the Investigator. In addition, reports on the progress of the study will be submitted to the IRB/IEC by the Investigator at the appropriate intervals.

  • Financial Considerations 5.1 In the event aggregate funding provided to SCDDO from county, state and/or federal sources is reduced or in any way becomes insufficient to fund this Agreement, the obligations of both SCDDO and the CSP must thereupon be: (1) reduced on a pro rata basis, or (2) renegotiated or terminated, provided that any termination of this Agreement must be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities of the parties accrued prior to the termination.

  • RISK CONSIDERATION There are no significant risks associated with the recommendations contained within this report. This application may be considered under existing MPS policies. Community Council has the discretion to make decisions that are consistent with the MPS, and such decisions may be appealed to the N.S. Utility and Review Board. Information concerning risks and other implications of adopting the proposed development agreement are contained within the Discussion section of this report. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS No environmental implications are identified.

  • PRIORITY HIRING CONSIDERATIONS If this Contract includes services in excess of $200,000, the Contractor shall give priority consideration in filling vacancies in positions funded by the Contract to qualified recipients of aid under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11200 in accordance with Pub. Contract Code §10353.

  • Settlement Consideration 2. In consideration of the full settlement, satisfaction, compromise and release of the Released Plaintiffs’ Claims, an aggregate $115 million in cash (the “Escrow Amount”) shall be paid on behalf of the Settling Defendants to Freeport by the D&O Carriers. The Settling Defendants shall cause the Escrow Amount to be deposited by the D&O Carriers into an interest-bearing escrow account controlled by an agreed upon representative of Plaintiffs and of the Settling Defendants (the “Escrow Account”) within fifteen (15) business days after the Stipulation is submitted to the Court. Upon the Effective Date, the Escrow Amount, together with any and all interest thereon, shall be paid to Freeport from the Escrow Account. For the avoidance of doubt, the Settling Defendants shall have no obligation to deposit any portion of the Escrow Amount into the Escrow Account but shall have an obligation to take all reasonably available steps to seek to cause the D&O Carriers to deposit the Escrow Amount into the Escrow Account.

  • Environmental Considerations A. Company, its officers, agents, servants, employees, invitees, independent contractors, successors, and assigns will not discharge or spill any Hazardous Substance, as defined herein, into any component of the storm drainage system or onto any paved or unpaved area within the boundaries of the Premises. In addition, Company will not discharge or spill any Hazardous Substance into any component of the sanitary sewer system without first neutralizing or treating same as required by applicable anti-pollution laws or ordinances, in a manner satisfactory to Authority and other public bodies, federal, state, or local, having jurisdiction over or responsibility for the prevention of pollution of canals, streams, rivers, and other bodies of water. Company’s discharge, spill or introduction of any Hazardous Substance onto the Premises or into any component of Authority’s sanitary or storm drainage systems will, if not remedied by Company with all due dispatch, at the sole discretion of Authority, be deemed a default and cause for termination of this Agreement by Authority, subject to notice and cure. Such termination will not relieve Company of or from liability for such discharge or spill.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.