User Profiles Sample Clauses
User Profiles. You may designate User Profiles equal in number to the number of seats set forth on the applicable Order Form. Your designated administrator (“Power User”) is responsible for the timely addition, removal, and designation of user profiles. If the employment of any of your employees with a User Profile terminates during the Term, such employee’s access to Priority Engine shall be revoked by the Power User immediately and without any action by us. In any event, you shall promptly notify us and take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that such former employee ceases accessing Priority Engine. You may, however, reassign user profiles at any time subject to the number of license seats provided on the Order Form. If you would like to change your Power User, you must inform your TechTarget client service representative at least two (2) business days prior to the date upon which you wish to implement this change.
User Profiles. You may have the opportunity to create a profile, which consists of information about you, and may include Personal Information, photographs, information on work previously performed via the Service and outside the Service, skills, earnings information, feedback/rating information and other information, including your username (“Profile”). The information in your Profile will be visible to all Pinion Users. If, in any case, you believe that an unauthorized profile has been created about you, you can request for it to be removed by contacting us. Before user can complete registration on the Service, or at any time thereafter, we may request or re-request identity verification. Without limiting the manner in which we request identify verification, we may require the user to participate in a video call after submitting their government issued ID to enable us to confirm that the user is indeed the individual in the ID or the appointed company representative. We may record such video calls and take screenshots of the user during the call. Pinion may use the information obtained from Identity Verification for purposes of verifying your identity, enforcing our Terms of Service and other agreements, and preventing fraud.
User Profiles. The ways of working to exploit the potential of creating added value based on bigger exposure, re-use and enrichment of cultural heritage by aggregation and collaboration are still in their infant stages. From the experiences so far it is clear that it is no easy undertaking. It requires fundamental changes to the administration and management of collections under stewardship, based on large investments in knowledge and new technical skills. Exchanging rich data, as it might be called, needs skilled human effort, advanced ICT infrastructure and sophisticated tools to map from source to target data. Many institutions within the Europeana Network share the vision that this is the way forward. However, at the moment their limited resources result in a limitation of the effort needed for exchanging data through Europeana or other aggregators. Initially the DoW stated that the profiles for the use cases would be: a small institution, a large institution and an aggregator. However, during the first specification task, the requirement analysis showed no clear distinction between small and large institutions or rather institutions with small collections or big collections in relation to their potential for exchanging digital information. What it did show was that it is not the size of an institution or the size of the digital collection that matters, but that it is a question of resource investment, in-house expertise (or the willingness to invest in it) and ambition or expectations. Furthermore, it showed that aggregators’ needs in the user scenarios were not different from content providers’ needs within the different scenarios. Even though an aggregator can act as a local point of contact for Europeana, can take care of the registration process of the museum and can enrich the metadata before passing it on to Europeana, it still has the same requirements as a content providing institution who would take all these organisational and technical steps themselves. As a result, the intended structuring of the use cases from the description of work was replaced with an alternative approach. It was decided to differentiate use case descriptions on (technical) capabilities, wishes and needs of content providers, based on the quality of their infrastructure and their digital strategy. Based on these findings, the two main profiles were identified: