Recommendations for terminology-based systems Sample Clauses

Recommendations for terminology-based systems. In terminology-based systems (e.g. CAMPUS), it is impossible to import unstructured text (like that from VPDText) into a highly structured database model. For those systems, often the only possibility for an import is to store the data externally and develop a new MVP/eViP player (as it was done in the case of CAMPUS) that is integrated with the legacy system. • While exporting data from terminology-based systems, their implementers may face the problem of losing some parts of case related data due to the less structured Virtual Patient Data model in the MVP specification. In those cases, either exporting the content as VPDText or the use of the XtensibleInfo elements is recommended, containing any data that is too specific for general use. For the second option it is recommended to define a separate namespace and a corresponding schema file. External systems may take advantage of this data if they implement this particular kind of extension. The remaining tools will automatically ignore the XtensibleInfo content.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Recommendations for terminology-based systems

  • Technical Standards Applicable to a Wind Generating Plant i. Low Voltage Ride-Through (LVRT) Capability A wind generating plant shall be able to remain online during voltage disturbances up to the time periods and associated voltage levels set forth in the standard below. The LVRT standard provides for a transition period standard and a post-transition period standard.

  • Technical and Organizational Measures The following sections define SAP’s current technical and organizational measures. SAP may change these at any time without notice so long as it maintains a comparable or better level of security. Individual measures may be replaced by new measures that serve the same purpose without diminishing the security level protecting Personal Data.

  • Service Level Standards In addition to all other requirements in this Agreement, and in accordance with the Best Claims Practices & Estimating Guidelines, Vendor shall use reasonable and good faith efforts to meet the Service Level Standards set forth below.

  • Selection Based on Consultants’ Qualifications Services estimated to cost less than $100,000 equivalent per contract may be procured under contracts awarded in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 3.1, 3.7 and 3.8 of the Consultant Guidelines.

  • Benchmarks for Measuring Accessibility For the purposes of this Agreement, the accessibility of online content and functionality will be measured according to the W3C’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA and the Web Accessibility Initiative Accessible Rich Internet Applications Suite (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 for web content, which are incorporated by reference. Adherence to these accessible technology standards is one way to ensure compliance with the College’s underlying legal obligations to ensure that people with disabilities are able to acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same benefits and services within the same timeframe as their nondisabled peers, with substantially equivalent ease of use; that they are not excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination in any College programs, services, and activities delivered online, as required by Section 504 and the ADA and their implementing regulations; and that they receive effective communication of the College’s programs, services, and activities delivered online.

  • Quality- and Cost-Based Selection Except as ADB may otherwise agree, the Borrower shall apply quality- and cost-based selection for selecting and engaging consulting services.

  • Appropriate Technical and Organizational Measures SAP has implemented and will apply the technical and organizational measures set forth in Appendix 2. Customer has reviewed such measures and agrees that as to the Cloud Service selected by Customer in the Order Form the measures are appropriate taking into account the state of the art, the costs of implementation, nature, scope, context and purposes of the processing of Personal Data.

  • Switching System Hierarchy and Trunking Requirements For purposes of routing ECI traffic to Verizon, the subtending arrangements between Verizon Tandem Switches and Verizon End Office Switches shall be the same as the Tandem/End Office subtending arrangements Verizon maintains for the routing of its own or other carriers’ traffic (i.e., traffic will be routed to the appropriate Verizon Tandem subtended by the terminating End Office serving the Verizon Customer). For purposes of routing Verizon traffic to ECI, the subtending arrangements between ECI Tandem Switches and ECI End Office Switches shall be the same as the Tandem/End Office subtending arrangements that ECI maintains for the routing of its own or other carriers’ traffic.

  • Evaluation Criteria 5.2.1. The responses will be evaluated based on the following: (edit evaluation criteria below as appropriate for your project)

  • Timing of Evaluations Annual performance evaluations shall normally take place near the anniversary date of completion of original probation. However, as to employees who have been rehired as a restoration or after a reduction in force, the date of rehire shall be the anniversary date for the annual evaluation. The Human Resources Department will attempt to secure agency cooperation in conducting the evaluation process in reasonable relationship to the above schedule. Failure to conduct a timely annual rating shall not be grievable. Deadline for Evaluation Meetings: A meeting to discuss an evaluation shall be held within forty- five (45) days after the applicable anniversary date, or after the end of any prescriptive period for remediation (“PPR”) or warning period. This deadline may be extended to accommodate the employee’s illness or injury. Where the deadline is not satisfied, the employee shall be granted an annual overall presumptive rating equal to their last annual overall rating, but not less than a Satisfactory (“S”) rating. However, if the time for annual evaluation falls during a PPR or warning period (See Disciplinary Action 14, Section 1(e), 2 & 3, the annual evaluation shall be waived, and the last evaluation in such process shall be deemed to be the annual evaluation. In the event the time for annual evaluation falls subsequent to the issuance of a notice of performance deficiency (Step 1) but prior to the commencement of a PPR, the employer may issue an evaluation which does not supersede the previously issued notice. A special evaluation may be used at any time except it shall not be used as a late annual evaluation. Written feedback furnished to an employee which would have constituted the annual evaluation had it been timely conducted, shall not be considered as an evaluation, shall not be placed in the employee’s file at the time of issuance, shall not be grievable and does not require the presence of a union representative when issued. An oral or written notice of performance deficiency (Step 1 in the order of progressive corrective action) shall not be grievable when issued, and, when issued, shall not require the presence of a union representative. However, once Step 2 of progressive corrective action has been implemented (a special or annual evaluation coupled with a PPR) such notice or a written record of such notice shall be placed in the employee’s personnel file and shall be fully grievable.

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