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.
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.
Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:
Promotions Requiring Higher Qualifications Consideration for promotion shall be given to the senior applicant who does not possess the required qualifications but is presently obtaining such qualifications prior to filling the vacancy. At the discretion of the Employer, such an employee may be given a trial period to qualify within a reasonable length of time and will revert to her former position if the required qualifications are not met within such time.
JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION 2. Staff conducted an investigation of the Respondent’s activities. The investigation disclosed that the Respondent had engaged in activity for which the Respondent could be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of the Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of By-law No. 1.
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.
FISCAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Recognizing the value of Union input on behalf of employees, the parties agree to the following:
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED ACTION This agreement formalizes the mechanism that may be used by the City to transfer civil rights complaints to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission for investigation. ICRC will compensate the City for acting as the intake agent under this agreement. The City and ICRC have maintained this arrangement for several years. Transferring this time- consuming investigation responsibility to the ICRC will allow the Ames Human Relations Commission more time to devote to proactive educational projects in the community. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1, as described above.
Minute Clarification The parties mutually understand that the only obligation to continue the health benefits of active employees after the expiration of the Agreement is that which may arise from the general legal duty to bargain in good faith.
EDD Independent Subrecipient Reporting Requirements Effective January 1, 2001, the County of Orange is required to file in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 6041A of the Internal Revenue Code for services received from a “service provider” to whom the County pays $600 or more or with whom the County enters into a contract for $600 or more within a single calendar year. The purpose of this reporting requirement is to increase child support collection by helping to locate parents who are delinquent in their child support obligations. The term “service provider” is defined in California Unemployment Insurance Code Section 1088.8, Subparagraph B.2 as “an individual who is not an employee of the service recipient for California purposes and who received compensation or executes a contract for services performed for that service recipient within or without the State.” The term is further defined by the California Employment Development Department to refer specifically to independent Subrecipients. An independent Subrecipient is defined as “an individual who is not an employee of the ... government entity for California purposes and who receives compensation or executes a contract for services performed for that ... government entity either in or outside of California.” The reporting requirement does not apply to corporations, general partnerships, limited liability partnerships, and limited liability companies. Additional information on this reporting requirement can be found at the California Employment Development Department web site located at xxxx://xxx.xxx.xx.xxx/Employer_Services.htm
