Status and Initial results Sample Clauses

Status and Initial results. Since it’s creation in May 2012 the task force has, in collaboration with interested user communities from the DASISH cluster, ECRIN, VPH, LifeWatch, and EPOS, established a set of evaluation criteria and performed a paper evaluation of a number of promising technologies against these criteria. The initial set of evaluation criteria included: ▪ Basic technology, ▪ Object store methodologies, ▪ WebDav frontend, ▪ Scalability and capability, ▪ AAI schemes supported, ▪ License model, ▪ Deployment status, ▪ Deployment help available, ▪ Type of objects supported, ▪ Object identification mechanisms, ▪ Right and quota management, ▪ Metadata scheme and support for incremental metadata, ▪ Support for crowd sourcing, ▪ Server-side triggers, ▪ Data export mechanisms and ▪ Possible integration in EUDAT’s replication scenario, support for interlinking object, archiving support. The technologies evaluated included Scratchpads53, XxxxxxxXxxxxXxxxx00, XxxXxx00, Figshare56, iDrop57, myExperiment58, and INVENIO59. The paper evaluation of these technologies resulted in the decision to perform further hands-on evaluations of INVENIO, with BeeHub and myExperiment as backup solutions. The complete evaluation can be found in Annex A.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Status and Initial results. Since it’s creation in May 2012 the task force has, in collaboration with interested user communities from the DASISH cluster, ECRIN, VPH, LifeWatch, and EPOS, established a set of evaluation criteria and performed a paper evaluation of a number of promising technologies against these criteria. The initial set of evaluation criteria included:  Basic technology,  Object store methodologies,  WebDav frontend,  Scalability and capability,  AAI schemes supported,  License model,  Deployment status,  Deployment help available,  Type of objects supported,  Object identification mechanisms,  Right and quota management,  Metadata scheme and support for incremental metadata,  Support for crowd sourcing,  Server-side triggers,  Data export mechanisms and  Possible integration in EUDAT’s replication scenario, support for interlinking object, archiving support. The technologies evaluated included Scratchpads53, XxxxxxxXxxxxXxxxx00, XxxXxx00, Figshare56, iDrop57, myExperiment58, and INVENIO59. The paper evaluation of these technologies resulted in the decision to perform further hands-on evaluations of INVENIO, with BeeHub and myExperiment as backup solutions. The complete evaluation can be found in Annex A.
Sample 1
Status and Initial results. Since its creation in May 2012 the Simple Store task force has  in collaboration with interested user communities from the DASISH cluster, ECRIN, VPH, LifeWatch, and EPOS  established a set of evaluation criteria and performed a paper evaluation of a number of promising technologies against these criteria. The technologies evaluated included Scratchpads6, XxxxxxxXxxxxXxxxx0, XxxXxx0, Figshare9, iDrop10, myExperiment11, and INVENIO12. The paper evaluation of these technologies lead to a decision to perform further hands-on evaluations of INVENIO, with BeeHub and myExperiment as backup solutions. Although Invenio has a somewhat old- fashioned user interface (UI), the main arguments for selecting Invenio were that it enables users to add metadata (and includes social tagging and commenting aspects), that integration with PIDs is supported, and the fact that it is an open source technology maintained by CERN. Other candidate technologies lacked more functionality and metadata support, or were closed sourced (e.g., Figshare). Details of the evaluation process have been reported in D5.2.1 and in Annex F. After this evaluation, a test instance of INVENIO was installed at SNIC/KTH and made available to the task force members and interested user communities. Users were expected to perform a simple sequence of tests including:
Sample 1
Status and Initial results. From its start in 2012 and after resource provisioning from EUDAT partners in September 2012, the task force developed criteria that were used to evaluate suitable technologies. The technologies examined were CKAN20, DNET21 and a home-grown solution that was to be developed by the task force itself. The evaluation of these solutions was based on the analysis of the available documentation (e.g. white papers and manuals) and on interviews with representatives from CKAN and DNET. The result of the analysis was that both CKAN and DNET seemed to be appropriate for the intended use. The facts that design, management and usage with CKAN are much simpler than with DNET  which means that the dependence on developers is therefore less  led to the decision to select CKAN as the candidate technology. A self-developed solution was determined to be too costly. This decision was supported by 18 xxxxx://xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx/download/attachments/11993625/Metadata+TF+DiscDoc-V10.docx 19 xxxxx://xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx/download/attachments/11993625/TF-MD-Plan-v7_1_rev_20130623-2.docx 20 xxxx://xxxx.xxx 21 xxxx://xxx.x-xxx.xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx/ the SAF in January 2013. Bearing in mind that such a limited evaluation includes risks, it was decided to initiate a separate branch for technology appraisal in the work plan.
Sample 1

Related to Status and Initial results

  • Evaluation Results A. Evaluation results shall be used:

  • Progress Reports and Information When required, the Contractor shall submit to the Owner such schedule of quantities and costs, payrolls, bills, vouchers, correct copies of all subcontracts, statements, reports, correct copies of all agreements, correspondence, and written transactions with the surety on the performance bond that have any relevance to the Work, estimates, records, and other data as the Owner may request that concerns the Work performed or to be performed under this Contract. When requested by the Owner, the Contractor shall give the Owner access to its records relating to the foregoing. (See also Article 1.2.3, Audits.) The above reports shall include, but are not limited to, (a) written notice of dates by which specified Work will have been completed, (b) written notice of dates by which Non-Compliant Work will be made good, (c) written notice that Non-Compliant Work has been made good, (d) written notice as to the date or dates by which Work that has not been performed with equal steps and at the same rate required by the Overall Project Schedule shall have been brought into conformity with the Overall Project Schedule, (e) date by which any undisputed claim of a Subcontractor, Supplier, or laborer shall have been paid, (f) written advice regarding the nature and amount of any disputed claim of a Subcontractor, Supplier, or laborer, and (g) information regarding Work performed under Change Orders.

  • Management Reports Promptly upon receipt thereof, copies of all detailed financial and management reports submitted to the Company by independent auditors in connection with each annual or interim audit made by such auditors of the books of the Company.

  • Justification and Anticipated Results The Privacy Act requires that each matching agreement specify the justification for the program and the anticipated results, including a specific estimate of any savings. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(o)(1)(B).

  • FALSE STATEMENTS CONCERNING HIGHWAY PROJECTS T h i s p r o v i s i o n i s applicable to all Federal-aid construction contracts and to all related subcontracts. In order to assure high quality and durable construction in conformity with approved plans and specifications and a high degree of reliability on statements and representations made by engineers, contractors, suppliers, and workers on Federal- aid highway projects, it is essential that all persons concerned with the project perform their functions as carefully, thoroughly, and honestly as possible. Willful falsification, distortion, or misrepresentation with respect to any facts related to the project is a violation of Federal law. To prevent any misunderstanding regarding the seriousness of these and similar acts, Form FHWA-1022 shall be posted on each Federal-aid highway project (23 CFR 635) in one or more places where it is readily available to all persons concerned with the project: 18 U.S.C. 1020 reads as follows: "Whoever, being an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, or of any State or Territory, or whoever, whether a person, association, firm, or corporation, knowingly makes any false statement, false representation, or false report as to the character, quality, quantity, or cost of the material used or to be used, or the quantity or quality of the work performed or to be performed, or the cost thereof in connection with the submission of plans, maps, specifications, contracts, or costs of construction on any highway or related project submitted for approval to the Secretary of Transportation; or Whoever knowingly makes any false statement, false representation, false report or false claim with respect to the character, quality, quantity, or cost of any work performed or to be performed, or materials furnished or to be furnished, in connection with the construction of any highway or related project approved by the Secretary of Transportation; or Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or false representation as to material fact in any statement, certificate, or report submitted pursuant to provisions of the Federal-aid Roads Act approved July 1, 1916, (39 Stat. 355), as amended and supplemented; Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both."

  • GEOGRAPHIC AREA AND SECTOR SPECIFIC ALLOWANCES, CONDITIONS AND EXCEPTIONS The following allowances and conditions shall apply where relevant: Where the company does work which falls under the following headings, the company agrees to pay and observe the relevant respective conditions and/or exceptions set out below in each case.

  • Reports and Inspections It will:

  • HHSC SPECIAL CONDITIONS The terms and conditions of these Special Conditions are incorporated into and made a part of the Contract. Capitalized items used in these Special Conditions and not otherwise defined have the meanings assigned to them in HHSC Uniform Terms and Conditions -Grant- Version 2.16.1

  • Financial Condition There shall have been no material adverse change, as determined by Bank, in the financial condition or business of Borrower, nor any material decline, as determined by Bank, in the market value of any collateral required hereunder or a substantial or material portion of the assets of Borrower.

  • Reports and Information 17.1 At such times and in such forms as the CITY may require, there shall be furnished to the CITY such statements, records, reports, data and information as the CITY may request pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement.

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