Provenance and Traceability Sample Clauses

Provenance and Traceability. ‌ The ability to relate the many artefacts stored within the different tools is an essential feature of the INTO-CPS tool chain. This feature has three different abilities: • the ability to logically relate artefacts contained in the many tools, such as relating a requirement to a model that implements it, this we refer to as traceability; • the ability to record the temporal links between entities produced dur- ing the development, such as connecting simulation results and the tools and models that created them, this we term the provenance; and • finally the ability to query this stored data to produce useful informa- tion for the various stakeholders of the project. The success of the provenance and traceability activities will depend on the tool support, which begins in year 2 of the project, but more so on a solid on- tology of the INTO-CPS artefacts and relations that will be tracked. The ini- tial work describing these elements is included in Appendix A of [FGPP15a] and the interested reader is directed there to find more details. Initial explo- ration of how this can be incorporated in the tool suite has been carried out [Han16].
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Provenance and Traceability methods for machine-assisted recording and mainte- xxxxx of links between models, multi-models and other design artefacts. The guidelines are underpinned by a common concept base, and are supported by a growing set of pilot studies that can serve as benchmarks for the methods and tools and as illustrations for the tool chain’s capabilities. The first release of the new multi-modelling tool chain was scheduled for late in Year 1. Our priority in WP3 was therefore to lay foundations for guidelines that will emerge from experience with the tool chain, and to provide specifications for functionality required of tools in the areas of Design Space Exploration (DSE) and traceability. Our specific objectives were therefore as follows: • To survey the state of the art in multi-modelling methods, so that the project could identify promising techniques and tools and position its own contributions. This survey is reported in Section 3. • To review the workflows in the case study partners and identify a candidate initial workflow against which the INTO-CPS tool chain could be validated once released. This was undertaken in Task 3.1 and is reported in Section 2.1. • To specify the Design Space Exploration (DSE) support that would ultimately be required in the toolchain. This was undertaken in Task 3.2 and is reported in Section 2.2. The specification will be implemented in Task 5.1, for which Year 1 progress is reported in Deliverable 5.1a [GHJ+15]. • To specify the traceability and provenance functionality that the toolchain should support. This would be implemented in Task 4.4 from Year 2 onwards. This was undertaken in Task 3.3 and is reported in Section 2.3. Details of the support for provenance features are given as Appendix A. The specification will be implemented in Task 4.4 from Year 2 onwards. • To prepare a common concept base for the project, and deliver a first set of guide- lines for the construction of SysML models for multi-modelling given different entry points, domain knowledge and previous multi-modelling experience. This was un- dertaken in Task 3.4 and is reported in Section 2.4. The concept base is reported in D3.1a Method Guidance 1 [FGPP15]. • To document initial pilot studies that illustrate various properties of CPSs and features of the INTO-CPS technologies. This was undertaken in Task 3.5 and the initial pilot studies are described in reported in Section 2.5.
Sample 1
Provenance and Traceability. ‌ The first year of provenance and traceability study has concentrated on exploring the both the relations that will be important to the record within the INTO-CPS tool chain and also potential standard notations and specifications that may be used to represent them. Two distinct specifications have been identified to form the foundations for the the provenance and traceability concepts within INTO-CPS, these specifications have the benefits of both being open and free to use, and, in case of OSLC, have a wide base of industry support. The W3C PROV 2 model provides support for recording the temporal relations between activities, entities and agents within a process. This supports the recording of, for example, links between simulation results and the models, platforms and configurations that produced them, this is important when generating documentation as part of a certification effort. To compliment this the relations specified by the OSLC 3 provides support for recording logical relations between objects within a data set. So OSLC allows the linking of, for example, a submodel and a requirement that it is designed to satisfy, or from a simulation result to the requirement it provides evidence for. The key concepts of both PROV and OSLC are presented in Appendix A of this document along with the proposed provenance and traceability ontology, which will form the basis for data recorded by the various tools in the INTO-CPS tool chain. This appendix also contains example applications of both PROV and OSLC being used to represent many of the document relations expected when using the INTO-CPS tool chain and workflows. 2xxxx://xxx.x0.xxx/TR/prov-overview/ 3xxxx://xxxx-xxxxxxxx.xxx‌
Sample 1

Related to Provenance and Traceability

  • Traceability 11.1 Under the terms of this Agreement, Supplier shall have and operate a process to ensure that all Products, sub-assemblies and the components contained therein supplied to the Buyer are completely Traceable back to manufacturer by batch or lot or date code.

  • Substance Abuse Testing The Parties agree that it is in the best interest of all concerned to promote a safe working environment. The Union has no objection to pre-employment substance abuse testing when required by the Employer and further, the Union has no objection to voluntary substance abuse testing to qualify for employment on projects when required by a project owner. The cost and scheduling of such testing shall be paid for and arranged by the Employer. The Union agrees to reimburse the Employer for any failed pre-access Alcohol and Drug test costs.

  • Quality Assurance Requirements There are no special Quality Assurance requirements under this Agreement.

  • Trunk Group Architecture and Traffic Routing The Parties shall jointly engineer and configure Local/IntraLATA Trunks over the physical Interconnection arrangements as follows:

  • Compatibility 1. Any unresolved issue arising from a mutual agreement procedure case otherwise within the scope of the arbitration process provided for in this Article and Articles 25A to 25G shall not be submitted to arbitration if the issue falls within the scope of a case with respect to which an arbitration panel or similar body has previously been set up in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral convention that provides for mandatory binding arbitration of unresolved issues arising from a mutual agreement procedure case.

  • Year 2000 Compatibility Borrower shall take all action necessary to assure that Borrower's computer based systems are able to operate and effectively process data including dates on and after January 1, 2000. At the request of Bank, Borrower shall provide Bank assurance acceptable to Bank of Borrower's Year 2000 compatibility.

  • Post-Commercial Operation Date Testing and Modifications Each Party shall at its own expense perform routine inspection and testing of its facilities and equipment in accordance with Good Utility Practice as may be necessary to ensure the continued interconnection of the Large Generating Facility with the Participating TO’s Transmission System in a safe and reliable manner. Each Party shall have the right, upon advance written notice, to require reasonable additional testing of the other Party’s facilities, at the requesting Party’s expense, as may be in accordance with Good Utility Practice.

  • Interoperability To the extent required by applicable law, Cisco shall provide You with the interface information needed to achieve interoperability between the Software and another independently created program. Cisco will provide this interface information at Your written request after you pay Cisco’s licensing fees (if any). You will keep this information in strict confidence and strictly follow any applicable terms and conditions upon which Cisco makes such information available.

  • MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION The goal of this task is to report the benefits resulting from this project. Project team may use in- house expertise of the project demonstration site or use third party vendor for measurement and verification (M&V) of GHG and energy consumption reduction. The Recipient shall: • Enter into agreement with M&V subcontractor per Task 1.9 • Coordinate site visits with the M&V subcontractor at the demonstration sites • Develop M&V protocol for pre-installation measurement (and calculation): o Electric, natural gas and/or other fossil fuel consumption and GHG emissions (use appropriate emissions factor from Attachment 8 of the grant solicitation) of the equipment/process/system(s)/sub-system(s) that are to be upgraded and/or replaced and/or modified. o Ensure installation of sub-metering equipment and data loggers for pre/post data analysis. • Prepare and provide a detailed M&V Plan for each project demonstration site to include but not be limited to: o Description of the monitoring equipment and instrumentation which will be used. o Description of the key input parameters and output metrics which will be measured. o Description of the M&V protocol and analysis methods to be employed. o Description of the independent, third-party M&V services to be employed, if applicable. • Perform three months (or shorter period as approved in writing by the CAM) of pre- installation measurements (and calculations) based on the M&V protocol for pre- installation. • Prepare and provide a Pre-Installation M&V Findings Report for each demonstration site that includes M&V protocol, pre-install measurements (and calculations), analysis, and results performed in this task. • Develop M&V protocol for post-installation measurements (and calculations) of: o Electric, natural gas and/or other fossil fuel consumption and GHG emissions (use appropriate emissions factor from Attachment 8 of the grant solicitation) of the equipment/process/system(s)/sub-system(s) that will be upgraded and/or replaced and/or modified  Perform 12 months or two seasons, for seasonal facilities, (or shorter period as approved in writing by the CAM) of post-installation measurements based on M&V protocol for post-installation. • Provide a summary of post-installation M&V progress in Progress Report(s) (see subtask 1.5) which shall include but not be limited to: o A narrative on operational highlights from the reporting period, including any stoppages in operation and why; and o A summary of M&V findings from the reporting period. • Analyze post-installation electrical, natural gas and/or other fossil fuel consumption and GHG emissions. • Prepare and provide a Post-Installation M&V Findings Report for each demonstration site that includes M&V protocol, pre and post install measurements (and calculations), analysis, and results performed in this task. Results should at a minimum report on the reduction of electricity, natural gas and/or other fossil fuel usage and reductions of GHG emissions that directly result from this project and include the following: o Provide all key assumptions used to estimate and determine energy and GHG reductions (and additions, if applicable). o Provide all key assumptions used to estimate projected benefits, including targeted market sector (e.g., population and geographic location), projected market penetration, baseline and projected energy use and cost, operating conditions, and emission reduction calculations. o Discuss whether the energy and GHG emission reductions identified in section II.C were met. • Prepare a CPR Report #2 in accordance with subtask 1.3. • Participate in a CPR Meeting #2.

  • Validation ‌ Within one (1) year after the effective date of this contract, the Agency shall submit this contract to a court of competent jurisdiction for determination of its validity by a proceeding in mandamus or other appropriate proceeding or action, which proceeding or action shall be diligently prosecuted to final decree or judgment. In the event that this contract is determined to be invalid by such final decree or judgment, the State shall make all reasonable efforts to obtain validating legislation at the next session of the Legislature empowered to consider such legislation, and within six (6) months after the close of such session, if such legislation shall have been enacted, the Agency shall submit this contract to a court of competent jurisdiction for redetermination of its validity by appropriate proceeding or action, which proceeding or action shall be diligently prosecuted to final decree or judgment.

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