Related Works Sample Clauses
Related Works. 11.1 Should the Subcontractor’s performance depend in any way on the proper performance of another person, for example, a consultant or another contractor, the Subcontractor must take all reasonable steps to enquire into and discover any defects in such performance and the Subcontractor must promptly provide a written report to Savcor ART relating to any defects it discovers.
11.2 The Subcontractor must co-operate fully with other subcontractors and consultants and with Savcor ART’s employees, contractors and agents.
11.3 The Subcontractor shall incorporate any reasonable changes in scheduling and performance of the Works to accommodate the needs of other subcontractors or consultants and the Subcontractor shall comply with the directions given by Savcor ART’s project manager.
11.4 Any consequent delay or disruption claims must be dealt with in accordance with Part 6.
Related Works. The number of nodes in a fully secure network can be increased by using multiple key spaces. In [14], ω key spaces are generated and each node is given a sub-set of τ randomly chosen keys from ω. After deployment, nodes discover their common keys and use the Xxxx’x scheme to form pairwise keys. The scheme uses a similar idea to the probabilistic scheme of Eschenaeur-Gligor [3] where nodes are given a random set of keys from a global key space. In these schemes the aim is to achieve full connectivity, but not necessarily complete connectivity like a full mesh. Another approach also uses Xxxx’x scheme with multiple key spaces to improve resistance to the Xxxxx attack [15]. In [16], the scheme for a clustered topology is proposed. Here, the cluster-heads implement the Xxxx’x scheme to derive pairwise keys among themselves. Non cluster-head nodes do not implement the Xxxx’x scheme. Instead, they store a pre-computed secret key Ki for use with a clus- ter head. Prior to deployment, the base station computes the pairwise keys of this node with a certain number of associated cluster-heads. These are then combined into a secret key Ki and stored in the node, together with the identities (IDs) of the associated cluster-heads. When a node needs to establish a secure link with a physical cluster-head, it sends its own ID and the IDs of its associated cluster- heads. The physical cluster-head forwards the node’s ID to the associated cluster-heads to compute the pairwise keys using Xxxx’x scheme and thereby derives the secret key Ki. In this way, non-cluster head nodes store minimum keying material and do not need to perform any key computation computation. Instead, these are delegated to the cluster heads which carry the additional load of communicating with other cluster heads to derive the key with a non cluster-head node. The network size would still be limited to the (m 1) nodes for a fully secure network. Since cluster-heads establish pairwise keys among themselves using the basic Xxxx’x scheme, the key size and memory requirements, and network size would still be limited to the original scheme.
Related Works. At present, recipient in many crypto schemes is designated, i.e. only the designated recipient can validly execute the schemes. Some signature schemes with designated recipient are proposed in [20] [21]. In these schemes, only the designated recipient can verify the signature. Another important property about these schemes is that the recipient can’t convince the third party of the identity of the signer as well as the content that signed by the signer. Hence, this kind of signature has the property of deniability. An interesting signature, ring signature, is proposed in [18]. It can hide the identity of signer and achieve the goal of deniability. Deniable key agreement protocol is studied in [16] and also can be found in [17] [11]. Dwork et al. [7] first formally treat the deniable authentication problem, followed by paper [16] [19]. Raimondon et al. [10] extend the work of Dwork and carry on thorough analysis to the deniable authenticated key agreement protocol. Xxxxxxxx first presented the Chameleon function in 2000. Due to the interesting properties of Chameleon function, it is used to design some crypto schemes [14] [15].
Related Works. The Semantic Web was introduced by Xxx Xxxxxxx-Xxx for Dec/31, 2000 June 30, 2008 2000-2008 Africa 4,514,400 51,065,630 1,031.2 % Asia 114,304,000 578,538,257 406.1 % Europe 105,096,093 384,633,765 266.0 % Middle East North America 3,284,800 108,096,800 41,939,200 248,241,969 1,176.8 % 129.6 % America/Caribbean Oceania / Australia 18,068,919 7,620,480 139,009,209 20,204,331 669.3 % 165.1 % WORLD TOTAL 360,985,492 1,463,632,361 305.5 % the first time in one of his speeches in 1998 as an extension to the current web [3]. He described the different versions of the Semantic Web architecture in 2000 [4], 2003 [5], 2005[6], 2006 [7]. Fensel is one of the main contributors in the Semantic Web field discussed the Semantic Web and the languages associated with its architecture in 2000 [8], while in 2002, he describeed OIL and its relation to OWL and the future capabilities of OWL [9]. Fensel was not the only scientist who made great efforts in this area, but there are Xxx Xxxxxxxx [10], Xxxxx-Xxxxxxxxx [11] and Xxxxxx [12] also participated in this domain. There is still a long way for the full vision for the Semantic Web and the full implementation of it [13] [14].
Related Works. For each unit of a Related Work (as defined in Section 2(b) of the Second Amendment) distributed to a customer by Comshare, Comshare shall pay Arbor a royalty in the amount of (i) the applicable royalty as provided in Subsection I(A)(1), I(B)(1) or I(C)(1) above plus (ii) **********. Arbor shall bear any one time payment or lump sum fee payable by Arbor to a third party for distribution rights to a Related Work where the rights obtained include distribution rights for any party in addition to Comshare.
Related Works. Arbor will provide to Comshare all Related Works owned and developed by Arbor. If a Related Work is developed by a third party and Arbor retains for itself or obtains from the third party, as the case may be, the right to distribute the Related Work to Arbor's customers and distributors, Arbor will use reasonable commercial efforts to obtain or retain the right to provide the Related Work to Comshare for distribution by Comshare under this * Indicates that information has been omitted and confidential treatment has been requested therefore. All such omitted information has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2. License Agreement. In such event, Arbor agrees that it will not withhold or encourage any third party to withhold from Arbor the right to relicense the Related Work to Comshare; provided, however, that Arbor does not guarantee that it will be able to retain or obtain such right for Comshare. Notwithstanding the foregoing and by way of limitation, the Parties agree that the rights granted by Arbor to Comshare hereunder shall in no event be greater than the rights granted to or retained by Arbor with respect to the Related Works. In addition, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, (i) with respect to any Related Work owned by a third party, Arbor makes no different representations or warranties to Comshare than those provided by the third party to Arbor and (ii) with respect to any Related Work owned or developed by a third party, Arbor undertakes no obligation of support or maintenance greater than that provided by Arbor to any of its other distributors. In the event that Arbor does retain or obtain rights for Comshare with respect to any Related Work of a third party, Comshare shall pay Arbor an additional royalty as described in Section I(E) of Exhibit D to the License Agreement.
Related Works. The Author agrees that as long as this Work remains in print, the Author will not prepare or cause to be prepared without written permission of the Publisher any work of a character that will specifically interfere with the sale of this Work.
Related Works. Security healing following compromise was first investigated under the term post-compromise security (PCS) [8]. The first investigations looked strictly at confidentiality of data and specifically focused on compromise of session keys. Loss of signature keys and impersonation were not accounted for, leaving authentication issues and active attacks out of scope. PCS is a key property in both Signal [19] and OTR [6]. Forward Secrecy (FS) [14] was another and much earlier topic of research in the security-following-compromise scenario. Continuous Key Agreement, aka. Ratcheted Key Exchange, covers a line research for achieving both PCS and FS [8,21,7,22,2,12,16,5,17,24,3,11,1]. Some CKA messaging protocols such as Signal [19] claim to support on- demand user controlled re-authentication (e.g., through comparison of QR codes or numeric identifiers). However, the keys used in QR code or numeric code generation are not used inside of the CKA protocol evolution, so such action only authenticates to the time of session initiation and not the current protocol state [10]. Note that this also applies to the “trust-on-first-use” model – in case of certificate authority validation, keys are verified during initiation while for trusted- on-first-use they are assumed to be valid. In neither case does authentication extend past the session initiation phase, beyond some exploratory theoretical constructions [9]. Our work leverages the CKA definition of a ratcheting protocol [2], and is composable with any CKA-secure protocol. CKA and its security was introduced as a generalization of the lessons learned from ratcheting protocols such as Signal [19], which is used in Facebook Messaging, WhatsApp, and Skype as well as variants such as the Proteus protocol used in the Wire messaging application [13]. The CKA protocol description is highly generalized, allowing alignment to many ratcheting-style protocols. While we specifically focus on CKA as a general framework in this research, other works have also analyzed and provided security experiments for ratcheting key exchange protocols, as mentioned above. These works largely forgo the question of an active attacker, as such an attacker is largely viewed to be fatal to the protocol’s security. A notable exception is a line of enquiry [16] wherein the authors investigate the tie-in of authenticity to PCS healing. In that work, the authors achieve PCS under the restriction that compromise of secret keys does not include secret authen...
Related Works. Provided that all of the BSs are equipped with renewable energy harvesters and implemented with two-way energy trading, [7, 21] propose a joint energy trading and full cooperation scheme in CoMP network, where the data of all of the users is available at the CP and will be distributed to all of the BSs in the cluster for co- operative transmission via fronthaul links. However, the data circulation between the CP and the BSs requires huge fronthaul signalling overhead when full coordi- nation is enabled. The scheme, nevertheless, takes no account of fronthaul capacity restrictions, which may be infeasible for practical capacity-constrained fronthaul links [8]. Consequently, CoMP with finite fronthaul capacity has been investigated by the scientific community and sparse beamforming technique for partial coopera- tion is considered as a viable solution to this issue. Motivated by the literature that sparse beamforming problem is commonly formulated as a l0-norm optimization problem and handled with reweighted l1-norm method in the field of compressive sensing [9], the authors in [11–14, 89] propose dynamic sparse beamforming de- signs subject to QoS constraints for capacity-limited fronthaul links in CoMP net- works. The authors in [10] integrate the aforementioned works with SWIPT concept and study the resource allocation algorithm, under QoS constraints for information receivers and power constraints at the BSs and the CP. It can be perceived that sparse beamforming technique in joint cooperative real-time resource management and energy trading problem in green C-RAN is firstly tackled in [18]. According to the theory of probability, a multi-armed bandit (MAB) is a prob- lem in which a gambler at a row of slot machines has to make a decision on which order and how many times the levers should be pulled to maximize the accumu- lated reward, also known as linear or classic MAB [17]. In statistics and reinforce- ment learning, the problem based on MAB concept has been well studied in the literature [16, 97–100]. The research on stochastic MAB problem which is intro- duced in [101] presents that under certain conditions on reward distributions, a tight asymptotic regret of O(log n) can be obtained, where n is the number of rounds
Related Works. The verification and key Agreement protocols (AKA) used are Group-based AKA protocol (GR AKA) in which group temporary key (GTK) simplifies the whole verification procedure. The SEAKA and EAP-AKA in which access point requests identification data that are, transmitted to verification server, cocktail AKA in which mutual verification is principle design concept, Secure AKA (S-AKA) and so on. But GR AKA avoids signal clogging in the networks and also updates the policy access frequently. Signal congestion happens when verification processed to each MTC device. Specifically, while using Group-based AKA it selects an asynchronous secret-share mechanism that can merge with Xxxxxx-Xxxxxxx (DH) key exchange scheme to implement distributed verification and session key establishment in LTE-A networks.