RELATE and IDENT Sample Clauses

RELATE and IDENT. 2.3.1.1 RELATE-X‌ The first constraint schema corresponds to MAX and DEP (and replaces CORR in ABC). Since I extend the definition to feature nodes, and in order to highlight the templatic nature of its definition, I refer to it with the more general name RELATE-X. A RELATE-X constraint is satisfied when all elements in the domain of a correspondence relation (e.g., the set of input root nodes) are in a correspondence relation with at least one element in the range (e.g., the set of output root node). It is defined as follows. RELATE-X definition. Given a correspondence relation ℛX-Y, assign a violation for each element in X that is not in ℛX-Y. RELATE-X considers a single tier of elements connected by a precedence relation (root nodes or feature nodes) and assigns a violation for each element not in a correspondence relation. Because of symmetric inverse, correspondence relation types always come in symmetric pairs. Applying the definition of RELATE-X to a pair of correspondence relations thus results in two constraints: RELATE-I, which corresponds to MAX, and RELATE-O, which corresponds to DEP. The same constraints exist for φ-Correspondence. The only parts of the constraint definition that varies are the variables that refer to the range and to the domain of the relation (i.e., the distinguishing factors of the relation types themselves). Let us start by considering only the φ-Correspondence relations with the dependent as the domain. Because of Hypothesis II, for each φ-Correspondence type there must be a correspondence constraint named RELATE-φ, where φ is the name of the feature nodes in the relation (e.g., RELATE-[+sib], RELATE-[+voc], etc.). These constraints all impose the same requirement: totality is instantiated at the feature node level.20 In each case, the domain is the set of non-head feature nodes in the output and the requirement is that each of these nodes corresponds to a head. Examples of RELATE-[+sib] and RELATE-I constraint definitions are given below.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
RELATE and IDENT. 2.3.1.1 RELATE-X The first constraint schema corresponds to MAX and DEP (and replaces CORR in ABC). Since I extend the definition to feature nodes, and in order to highlight the templatic nature of its definition, I refer to it with the more general name RELATE-X. A RELATE-X constraint is satisfied when all elements in the domain of a correspondence relation (e.g., the set of input root nodes) are in a correspondence relation with at least one element in the range (e.g., the set of output root node). It is defined as follows.

Related to RELATE and IDENT

  • Other Relevant Information This information shall always be in writing and shall address other relevant information as required by the contract or requested by the RFP. For example, in accordance with Section H, H106, Avoidance of Organizational Conflicts of Interest, identifying any situation in which the potential for a conflict of interest exists. If travel is specified in the TO PWS or statement of work, air fare and/or local mileage, per diem rates by total days, number of trips and number of contractor employees traveling shall be included in the cost proposal (see clause H047).

  • SECURITY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION 19.1 For this clause “personal information” has the meaning given to it in the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).

  • Links and Frames Links to other sites may be provided on the portion of the Site through which the Service is offered for your convenience. By providing these links, we are not endorsing, sponsoring or recommending such sites or the materials disseminated by or services provided by them, and are not responsible for the materials, services or other situations at or related to or from any other site, and make no representations concerning the content of sites listed in any of the Service web pages. Consequently, we cannot be held responsible for the accuracy, relevancy, copyright compliance, legality or decency of material contained in sites listed in any search results or otherwise linked to the Site. For example, if you "click" on a banner advertisement or a search result, your "click" may take you off the Site. This may include links from advertisers, sponsors, and content partners that may use our logo(s) as part of a co-branding agreement. These other sites may send their own cookies to users, collect data, solicit personal information, or contain information that you may find inappropriate or offensive. In addition, advertisers on the Site may send cookies to users that we do not control. You may link to the home page of our Site. However, you may not link to other pages of our Site without our express written permission. You also may not "frame" material on our Site without our express written permission. We reserve the right to disable links from any third party sites to the Site.

  • BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION The Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP) is a federally-assisted program of State-selected projects. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the State Departments of Transportation have long worked as partners to deliver the FAHP in accordance with Federal requirements. In enacting 23 U.S.C. 106(c), as amended, Congress recognized the need to give the States more authority to carry out project responsibilities traditionally handled by FHWA. Congress also recognized the importance of a risk-based approach to FHWA oversight of the FAHP, establishing requirements in 23 U.S.C. 106(g). This Stewardship and Oversight (S&O) Agreement sets forth the agreement between the FHWA and the State of Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) on the roles and responsibilities of the FHWA and the State DOT with respect to Title 23 project approvals and related responsibilities, and FAHP oversight activities. The scope of FHWA responsibilities, and the legal authority for State DOT assumption of FHWA responsibilities, developed over time. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation delegated responsibility to the Administrator of the FHWA for the FAHP under Title 23 of the United States Code, and associated laws. (49 CFR 1.84 and 1.85) The following legislation further outlines FHWA’s responsibilities: • Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991; • Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) of 1998; • Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) of 2005; and • Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) of 2012 (P.L. 112-141). The FHWA may not assign or delegate its decision-making authority to a State Department of Transportation unless authorized by law. Xxxxxxx 000 xx Xxxxx 00, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Code (Section 106), authorizes the State to assume specific project approvals. For projects that receive funding under Title 23, U.S.C., and are on the National Highway System (NHS) including projects on the Interstate System, the State may assume the responsibilities of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation under Title 23 for design, plans, specifications, estimates, contract awards, and inspections with respect to the projects unless the Secretary determines that the assumption is not appropriate. (23 U.S.C. 106(c)(1)) For projects under Title 23, U.S.C. that are not on the NHS, the State shall assume the responsibilities for design, plans, specifications, estimates, contract awards, and inspections unless the State determines that such assumption is not appropriate. (23 U.S.C. 106(c)(2)) For all other project activities which do not fall within the specific project approvals listed in Section 106 or are not otherwise authorized by law, the FHWA may authorize a State DOT to perform work needed to reach the FHWA decision point, or to implement FHWA’s decision. However such decisions themselves are reserved to FHWA. The authority given to the State DOT under Section 106(c)(1) and (2) is limited to specific project approvals listed herein. Nothing listed herein is intended to include assumption of FHWA’s decision-making authority regarding Title 23, U.S.C. eligibility or Federal-aid participation determinations. The FHWA always must make the final eligibility and participation decisions for the Federal-aid Highway Program. Section 106(c)(3) requires FHWA and the State DOT to enter into an agreement relating to the extent to which the State DOT assumes project responsibilities. This Stewardship and Oversight Agreement (S&O Agreement), includes information on specific project approvals and related responsibilities, and provides the requirements for FHWA oversight of the FAHP (Oversight Program), as required by 23 U.S.C. 106(g).

  • Effect and invariability of the Clauses (a) These Clauses set out appropriate safeguards, including enforceable data subject rights and effective legal remedies, pursuant to Article 46(1) and Article 46(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and, with respect to data transfers from controllers to processors and/or processors to processors, standard contractual clauses pursuant to Article 28(7) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, provided they are not modified, except to select the appropriate Module(s) or to add or update information in the Appendix. This does not prevent the Parties from including the standard contractual clauses laid down in these Clauses in a wider contract and/or to add other clauses or additional safeguards, provided that they do not contradict, directly or indirectly, these Clauses or prejudice the fundamental rights or freedoms of data subjects.

  • SAFETY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY 10.2.1 The Contractor shall take all reasonable precautions for the safety of, and shall provide all reasonable protection to prevent damage, injury or loss to:

  • Reports and Inspections It will:

  • Other Important Information Collection costs You agree to pay our reasonable costs for collecting amounts due, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs incurred by us or another person or entity, to the extent not prohibited by applicable law and except as provided below.

  • Tests and Inspections 5.2.1 Tests and Inspections shall comply with title 24, part 1, California Code of Regulations, group 1, article 5, section 4-335, and with the provisions of the Specifications.

  • Lessor’s Disclosure (a) Presence of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards (check one below): ☐ - Known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards are present in the housing (explain): . ☐ - Landlord has no knowledge of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the housing.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!