REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS Any revisions or amendments to this Agreement must be made in writing and signed by both parties.
ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The author of this document has added information needed for its completion. The author may also have revised the text of thestandard form and Deletions notes added well as xxxxx standard formavailable fro xxxx.Xx info ion tem th inal AIA An Additions port that rmation as s to the xt is e author and should be reviewed. « »« » « » « » « » This document has important legal consequences. Consultation with an attorney is encouraged with respect to its completion or modification. AIA Document A201™–2017, Conditions of the Contract for Construction, is adopted in this document by reference. Do not use with other general conditions unless this document is modified. General for the following Project: (Name, location, and detailed description) «Tule River Tribe Casino & Hotel Project» «Porterville, CA 93257 » «Construction of a new casino of approximately 189,900 SF, hotel of approximately 110,497 SF, and events center of approximately 25,000 SF, with pool and other associated improvements and amenities » « » The Architect: (Name, legal status, address, and other information) «HBG Design Attn: Xxx Xxxxxxxxxx 000 Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxx 000 Xxx Xxxxx, XX 00000 619.858.7888 « » The Owner’s Designated Representative: (Name, address and other information) «Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx Project Executive Summit Project Management (M): 000-000-0000 xxx@xxxxxx-xx.xxx » « » ELECTRONIC COPYING of any portion of this AIA® Document to another electronic file is prohibited and constitutes a violation of copyright laws as set forth in the footer of this document. The Owner, either directly or by and through its designated representative(s), may perform the duties and exercise the rights of Architect in administration of the Contract, the Project and the Work, as provided in the Contract Documents, including without limitation review and acceptance or rejection of Work, processing of applications for payment (progress and final), changes in the Work, Change Orders, and all acts and activities related thereto. Whenever and wherever Owner performs such duties and exercises such rights the term “Owner” or “Owner’s Representative” shall be deemed to be substituted for the term “Architect” wherever it appears in the Contract Documents. Notwithstanding the rm foregoing, the Owner is not a licensed design professional and shall not be required to perfo architect’s license is required. The Owner and Construction Manager agree as follows. any services for which an TABLE OF ARTICLES
Definitions and Abbreviations 12. The following terms and definitions shall apply to this Agreement:
Amendments/Modifications This Agreement may not be modified, altered or amended except by an agreement in writing executed by all of the parties hereto.
Revisions With respect to Contracts that are “electronic chattel paper”, the related Receivables have been established in a manner such that (a) all copies or revisions that add or change an identified assignee of the authoritative copy of each such Contract must be made with the participation of the Trust Collateral Agent and (b) all revisions of the authoritative copy of each such Contract are readily identifiable as an authorized or unauthorized revision.
Modifications and Add-ons Subject to the licensing of the required development rights under separate agreement, Provider shall be entitled to develop Modifications and Add-ons for the Software and shall be permitted to Use Modifications and Add- Ons with the Software in accordance with the license grant to the Software set forth in Section 3.1 herein. Provider shall promptly notify SAP if and when Provider is planning to develop Modifications or Add-ons to the Software. The notification provided by Provider shall include a high level description of the intended functionality and of the timeframe planned for such development. In addition, any Modifications or Add-ons must not i) unreasonably impair, degrade or reduce the performance or security of the Software; ii) enable the bypassing or circumventing of SAP license restrictions and/or provide users with access to the Software to which such users are not directly licensed; and/or iii) permit mass data or metadata extraction from an SAP software to a non-SAP software for the purpose of replacing the Software as the data’s system of record. With regards to the aforementioned item iii), Provider shall refer any Customer requiring such information to SAP.
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.
Interpretations and Definitions 2.01 For the purpose of this Agreement:
Amendments and Variations No amendment to or variation of this Agreement shall be effective unless made in writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of both Parties. The Agreement can be amended in compliance with the provisions of Article 61 of the Public Procurement Law of the Republic of Latvia.
Budget Modifications The total Approved Budget and the assignment of costs may be adjusted based on implementation of the Scope of Work, spending patterns, and unexpended funds, but only by an amendment to the Approved Budget. In no event shall an amendment to the Approved Budget result in payments in excess of the aggregate amount specified in Section 2.01 “Award of Monies” or in approved supplemental funding for the Project, if any. The RECIPIENT may make transfers between or among lines within budget categories without prior written approval provided that:
