Toronto Statement of 2009 Sample Clauses

Toronto Statement of 2009. The strong wordings in the Fort Lauderdale Principles in support of the interests of data users as compared to that of data producers (at least in the case of “community resource projects”) worried many data producers about effective preservation of their rights and their publication prospects. Many of these fears were softened to a great extent at a subsequent data release workshop in Toronto in May 2009, organised by Genome Canada and other funding agencies.18 The resulting Toronto Statement built upon the Fort Lauderdale Principles and further refined them. Most importantly, it endorsed the principle of extending early data release policies beyond genomics and proteomics studies to other data sets including chemical structure, metabolomics and RNA interference data sets.19 It even suggested extension of the principles to annotated clinical resources in appropriate cases.20 The Statement also emphasized the importance of simultaneously releasing metadata such as environmental or experimental conditions and phenotypes for enabling data users to fully exploit the data.21 The Toronto Statement further clarified the duties of data users to respect the rights and also the publishing expectations of data producers. It expressly obliged the users to respect the embargo periods in favour of data producers for first publication, that would “ideally expire within one year”.22 Simultaneously, the data producers were also urged to provide marker papers associated with their database entries.23 This was primarily intended to enable citations and tracking of the usage of early released data.24 The Toronto Statement also expressly distinguished between the large scale reference data sets, which were suitable for the application of early release policies, from the hypothesis driven datasets, where a delay in release was appropriate until the publication of relevant findings.25 The Toronto Statement also attempted to address some of the quality issues with early release of datasets, with a caution to editors and reviewers to look for possible sources 18 For an excellent summary of the workshop outcomes, see ‘Prepublication Data Sharing’, Nature, (2009) Vol. 461, Issue 10, 168, xxxx://xxx.xxxxxx.xxx/nature/journal/v461/n7261/full/461168a.html (accessed 3 December 2012). 19 Ibid., 168. 20 Ibid., 168. 21 Ibid., 169. 22 Ibid., 170. 23 Ibid., 170. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid., 169. of error.26 The Toronto Statement also addressed some of the enforcement issues by urging the funders to m...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Toronto Statement of 2009

  • of 2010 s 4.] AN AGREEMENT made the thirtieth day of April One thousand nine hundred and eighty‑four BETWEEN THE HONOURABLE XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX, M.L.A., Premier of the State of Western Australia, acting for and on behalf of the said State and instrumentalities thereof from time to time (hereinafter called “the State”) of the first part CLIFFS INTERNATIONAL INC. a limited company incorporated under the laws of the State of Ohio, one of the United States of America and registered in the State of Western Australia under the provisions of the Companies Xxx 0000 of the said State and having its registered office in the State of Western Australia at 12‑00 Xx. Xxxxxx’s Terrace, Perth (hereinafter called “Cliffs”) of the second part and CLIFFS WESTERN AUSTRALIAN MINING CO. PTY. LTD., a company incorporated under the said Companies Act and having its registered office at 12‑00 Xx. Xxxxxx’s Terrace, Perth (hereinafter called “Cliffs Western”) MITSUI IRON ORE DEVELOPMENT PTY. LTD. a company incorporated under the said Companies Act and having its principal office in the said State at 00xx Xxxxx, 00 Xx. Xxxxxx’s Terrace, Perth (hereinafter called “Mitsui Iron”) ROBE RIVER LIMITED a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory and having its principal place of business at 0 Xxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx in the State of New South Wales (hereinafter called “RRL”) and NIPPON STEEL AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED a company incorporated in the State of New South Wales and having its registered office in that State at 00 Xxxxxx Xxxxx, Sydney, SUMITOMO METAL AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED a company incorporated in the State of New South Wales and having its registered office in that State at 00xx Xxxxx, XXXX Xxxxxx, 0 Xxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx and the said MITSUI IRON ORE DEVELOPMENT PTY. LTD., such lastmentioned three companies acting together and carrying on business under the registered business name “CAPE XXXXXXX IRON ASSOCIATES” and having their principal place of business in the State of Western Australia at 00xx Xxxxx, 00 Xx. Xxxxxx’s Terrace, Perth (hereinafter collectively called “CLIA”), the said Cliffs Western, Mitsui Iron, RRL and CLIA (hereinafter collectively called “the Participants”) being the party of the third part.

  • of 2011 s 4.] Part I — Preliminary 1. Short title

  • Background and Narrative of Budget Reductions 2. Assumptions Used in the Deficit Reduction Plan: - EBF and Estimated New Tier Funding: - Equal Assessed Valuation and Tax Rates: - Employee Salaries and Benefits: - Short and Long Term Borrowing: - Educational Impact: - Other Assumptions: - Has the district considered shared services or outsourcing (Ex: Transportation, Insurance) If yes please explain: ESTIMATED LIMITATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (School Districts Only) (For Local Use Only)

  • Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 Subrecipient hereby acknowledges and agrees that it must comply with the requirements of the government-wide award term which implements Section 106(g) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000, as amended (22 U.S.C. 7104). The award term is located at 2 C.F.R. Part 175.15, the full text of which is incorporated here by reference.

  • Budget Impact The rental fee provided for in the agreement is for One Hundred Seventy dollars ($170.00) per month. This is a total annual airport revenue of $2,040.00.

  • Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with the terms and requirements of 31 USC 6101.

  • Budget Narrative Services are strictly paid as cost reimbursement. No funds will be paid for services not provided.

  • USA Patriot Act of 2001 Subrecipient hereby acknowledges and agrees that it must comply with the requirements of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act, P.L. 107-56), which amends 18 U.S.C. section 175– 175c.

  • Budget Schedule Subrecipient agrees that the expenditures of any and all funds under this Contract will be in accordance with the Budget Schedule, a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment C, and which by this reference is incorporated herein and made a part hereof as if fully set forth.

  • CERTIFICATION REGARDING BOYCOTTING CERTAIN ENERGY COMPANIES (Texas law as of September 1, 2021) By submitting a proposal to this Solicitation, you certify that you agree, when it is applicable, to the following required by Texas law as of September 1, 2021: If (a) company is not a sole proprietorship; (b) company has ten (10) or more full-time employees; and (c) this contract has a value of $100,000 or more that is to be paid wholly or partly from public funds, the following certification shall apply; otherwise, this certification is not required. Pursuant to Tex. Gov’t Code Ch. 2274 of SB 13 (87th session), the company hereby certifies and verifies that the company, or any wholly owned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary, parent company, or affiliate of these entities or business associations, if any, does not boycott energy companies and will not boycott energy companies during the term of the contract. For purposes of this contract, the term “company” shall mean an organization, association, corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, or limited liability company, that exists to make a profit. The term “boycott energy company” shall mean “without an ordinary business purpose, refusing to deal with, terminating business activities with, or otherwise taking any action intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations with a company because the company (a) engages in the exploration, production, utilization, transportation, sale, or manufacturing of fossil fuel-based energy and does not commit or pledge to meet environmental standards beyond applicable federal and state law, or (b) does business with a company described by paragraph (a).” See Tex. Gov’t Code § 809.001(1).

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