Clustering. At Transmission Provider's option, Interconnection Requests may be studied serially or in clusters for the purpose of the Interconnection System Impact Study. Clustering shall be implemented on the basis of Queue Position. If Transmission Provider elects to study Interconnection Requests using Clustering, all Interconnection Requests received within a period not to exceed one hundred and eighty (180) Calendar Days, hereinafter referred to as the "Queue Cluster Window" shall be studied together without regard to the nature of the underlying Interconnection Service, whether Energy Resource Interconnection Service or Network Resource Interconnection Service. The deadline for completing all Interconnection System Impact Studies for which an Interconnection System Impact Study Agreement has been executed during a Queue Cluster Window shall be in accordance with Section 7.4, for all Interconnection Requests assigned to the same Queue Cluster Window. Transmission Provider may study an Interconnection Request separately to the extent warranted by Good Utility Practice based upon the electrical remoteness of the proposed Large Generating Facility. Clustering Interconnection System Impact Studies shall be conducted in such a manner to ensure the efficient implementation of the applicable regional transmission expansion plan in light of the Transmission System's capabilities at the time of each study. The Queue Cluster Window shall have a fixed time interval based on fixed annual opening and closing dates. Any changes to the established Queue Cluster Window interval and opening or closing dates shall be announced with a posting on Transmission Provider's OASIS beginning at least one hundred and eighty (180) Calendar Days in advance of the change and continuing thereafter through the end date of the first Queue Cluster Window that is to be modified.
Clustering. At the ISO’s option, Transmission Interconnection Applications may be studied serially or in clusters for the purpose of the System Impact Study or Facilities Study.
Clustering. 29.02.1 A cluster is defined as a school within a school comprised of 160 students and 5 classroom Professional Staff Members. “
Clustering. At Transmission Provider’s option, Interconnection Requests may be studied serially or in clusters for the purpose of the Interconnection System Impact Study. Clustering of Interconnection Requests may be implemented on a regional basis as well as on the basis of Queue Position. If Transmission Provider elects to study new Interconnection Requests using Clustering, Interconnection Requests received within a Request Window shall be studied together. If several Interconnection Customers within a Request Window request to be studied in a cluster, Transmission Provider may at its sole discretion implement such a proposal. The deadline for completing all Interconnection System Impact Studies for which an Interconnection System Impact Study Agreement has been executed during a queue cluster window shall be in accordance with Section 7.4, for all Interconnection Requests assigned to the same queue cluster window. Transmission Provider may study an Interconnection Request separately to the extent warranted by Good Utility Practice based upon the location or size of the proposed Generating Facility.
Clustering. Residential lots shall be clustered , where feasible, to promote integrated site design that considers natural features of the site, creates more area for open space and recreation, avoids cultural resources, minimizes aesthetic impacts, maintains opportunities for commercial grazing, and minimizes loss of important agricultural lands.
Clustering. 1.2. the First Homes shall not be visually distinguishable from the Open Market Units based upon their external appearance
Clustering. A white node claims itself to be a dominator if it has the smallest ID among all of its white neighbors if there is any, and broadcasts IamDominator to its 1-hop neighbors. A white node receiving IamDominator message marks itself as dominatee and broadcasts IamDominatee to its 1-hop neighbors. Our assumption is that each node knows the IDs of all its 1-hop neighbors, which can be achieved by asking each node to broadcast its ID to its 1-hop neighbors initially. The set of dominators generated by the above method is actually a max- imal independent set. So far, each node only has to broadcast twice to its 1-hop neighbors: one for telling its ID and one for notifying its dominator/dominatee status. We continue to review the method of nding connectors. The connectors are from the set of nodes among all dominatees that connect the dominators. The connectors and the dominators together form the connected dominating set. Several communi- cation eÆcient algorithms [16], [17], [19], [20] for nding con- nectors have been proposed. Algorithm 5: FindingConnectors Every dominatee node w broadcasts IamDominatee(w,v) for each dominator v present in Dominators. When node u receives a message IamDominatee(w,v) where u 6= v, and there is no pair ( ,v) in Connector2HopsPath, the u adds (w,v) to Connector2HopsPath and broadcasts message 2HopsPath(u,w,v) to its 1-hop neighbors. Here is a node ID. In the event where, a node w receives a 2HopsPath(u,w,v) message it marks itself as a connector. When a dominator x receives a message 2HopsPath(u,w,v) where x 6= w, if there is not triplet ( , ,v) in Connec- tor3HopsPath then x adds (u,w,v) to Connector3HopsPath and broadcasts 3HopsPath(x,u,w,v) to its 1-hop neighbors. In the event where, a node u receives a 3HopsPath(x, u,w,v) message it marks itself as a connector. The messages used are (1) IamDominator(u): Node u in- forms its 1-hop neighbors that u is a dominator. (2) IamDominatee(u,v): Node u informs its 1-hop neighbors that u is a dominatee of v. (3) 2HopsPath(u,v,w): Node u informs its 1-
Clustering. The project will be clustered with another parallel 3rd Call project (IST-2000-25136 OPENHERITAGE, OH) in order to leverage the synergies that exist between the two projects and to avoid possible redundancies of work. As detailed in the Attachment an in-depth comparative analysis of the two projects has been carried out. In the light of this check and of the resulting remarks, the areas needing express coverage in the formulation of the TAs of OH and REGNET (RN) have been identified to be the following ones: D Integration of technical tools, e.g. in the collections management area. REGNET will clarify the extent of the cooperation desired in this area; D Legal framework. REGNET will focus on its development and OpenHeritage on its validation and implementation; D TSCs: each project will have to focus on its own peculiarities, with support functionality clearly belonging to OpenHeritage, tourism functionality developed by OpenHeritage, meta-collections access clearly carried out by REGNET, workflow and e-business models and practices clearly belonging to REGNET and e-commerce carried out by both but distinguished in focus and target; D Portals: OpenHeritage will clearly specialise in providing community services and media brokering services for professional operators. Many other minor improvements will also result from the implementation in both TAs of the many remarks made in the analysis of Attachment 6. As a result of the above analysis, a number of main additions have been made to the OpenHeritage Annex 1 in the direction of clustering, as follows. D The specification and development/integration of collections management solutions. In this area there has been a better orientation of activities, with OpenHeritage focusing on the definition and integration of core technologies for collections management at the object and catalogue levels, and REGNET focusing on the ontology (metadata) topics and on data entry/harvesting themes. The use of the OpenMuseum technology for physical museums in the REGNET consortium will be favoured by the OpenHeritage team; D The definition of the legal framework for the establishment of relationships between memory institutions and commercial services/initiatives. This activity has been dropped by OpenHeritage and will be carried out by REGNET only, while manpower effort will be devoted in OpenHeritage to integrating the socio-economic models developed here with the results of the research on the legal framework carried out wi...
Clustering. Clustering is a very important first step for any JT CoMP scheme. It divides the whole network into cooperation areas of smaller, reasonable and realizable size. Going from network-wide to clustered cooperation means - independent on the size of the CAs – to change a potentially interference-free into an interference limited system. This is generally accompanied by a performance loss. Cooperation within the clusters might then cancel some of the interferers, but will leave residual inter-cluster interference. There are many ways to cluster the network into cooperation areas: Single cell transmission – no cooperation Single-cell transmission is the reference case without any cooperation. 3GPP LTE Release 8, 9 and 10 are frequency reuse 1 systems that require a proper handling of the inter cell interference. Sophisticated scheduling is the main means and has been proven to be very powerful and robust, at least in case of low to medium load. Inter-cell interference coordination (ICIC) has been specified already for LTE Rel 8 and is enhanced at LTE Release 10 [3GPP-R1105081], but it seems to provide only marginal further gains in macro cellular environments. Network-centric cooperation (Figure 5.2): Network-centric cooperation means the use of a fixed pre-defined clustering, regardless of channel conditions or user locations. The most interesting case is that of intra-site cooperation, where all cells of a site form the cooperation areas, in our case with 3 cells or sectors per site. From an implementation point of view, intra-site cooperation is simple. It can be implemented in a single baseband unit and with a single local oscillator (LO). This avoids backhaul overhead, extra transmission delays and potential frequency offset or degradations due to LO phase noise. From a system level perspective, already a quite significant part of the potential gains are provided by reducing inter-sector interference. 11 Unfortunately, intra-site cooperation does not help the most interference-limited UEs at the cell borders between adjacent sites, which suffer from low Rx signal power in addition to interference. User-centric cooperation: As the name states, for user-centric cooperation the cooperation areas are constructed around the UEs, so that they include e.g. the 3 strongest cells, thereby maximizing the overall CoMP gains. User-centric cooperation is an important prerequisite for larger CoMP gains, as cancelling of weaker interferers would provide only m...
Clustering. When it is necessary to Reduce in Force (RIF) or to bring back a teacher from a cluster with the same date of hire, the following criteria will be used to determine who will return: (Numbers in the parenthesis ( ) below represent values for factors used for each criteria.) Level 1
