Document Structure. 2.1 In general, the Agreement will consist of the following documents, whereby in the event of any inconsistency or conflict between or among provisions of the following documents, the contents of the document first listed shall have precedence and shall prevail over the documents listed later, in descending order:
Document Structure. Section 3.0 details the three opportunity analyses. Supporting information for Section 3.0 is contained in the Appendices. Appendix A contains the Minnesota wants and needs definitions, Appendix B contains the Minnesota services definitions, Appendix C contains the demand weight analysis data, and Appendix D contains the demographic analysis data. Section 4.0 details the strength relationship analysis.
Document Structure. This section describes the structure of the document. - Section 1 is this introduction - Section 2 describes the service components - Section 3 define the services terms and conditions of usage
Document Structure. This document is comprised of the following chapters: Chapter 1 is the introductory section of this document.
Document Structure. The remainder of this document is structured as follows: in Section 2 we describe our approach to designing a protocol for the re-negotiation of contracts and com- pare it against other approaches. Section 3 then outlines the requirements (and non-requirements) for the protocol. Section 4 describes the assumptions made and the framework within which a re-negotiation occurs. Section 5 then specifies the protocol. The paper concludes with Section 6, which provides a summary and discusses future work.
Document Structure. This document is structured to capture the key conditions of the agreement in a logical order. It is understood that the agreement may be changed at any time by the mutual consent of both parties using the revision history and approval records contained in the Document Distribution, Approval and Revision History.
Document Structure. It is important to realise that an SLA, no matter how detailed, will not provide sufficient assurance for a customer to trust a service provider with their data. The approach of auditing a service provider and using an audit certificate as evidence of trustworthiness is discussed in Chapter 2 and a survey of the AV preservation community’s attitude to trust is described and the results presented. The key relationships between the service, resources, service level agreements (SLAs) and customer interactions are outlined in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 then provides the necessary background to understanding how SLAs can be managed, discussing the importance of not including objectives or constraints in an SLA that cannot be measured, proposing how to capture the necessary terms using a generic framework and outlining architectural options for measurement and management systems.
Document Structure. As indicated above, the aim of this document is to outline user requirements regarding privacy and to present the basic premises upon which UCN will seek to address these requirements within the design of its system. In order to do this we will: • Examine user understandings of privacy, both in terms of the ordinary everyday assumptions people make about privacy and in terms of the extent to which current privacy mechanisms are intelligible to them when they are engaged in online activity. • Make explicit user requirements and expectations regarding privacy, both in terms of what data is being collected about them and in terms of how that data might be used. • Present how these various considerations will be addressed through the privacy and security models being developed within UCN and how these will be open to flexible tailoring to meet the requirements of different kinds of context. In the next section we shall use a range of existing work and related ethnographic studies in order to discuss just how people currently understand and orient to privacy as an everyday feature of their use of computing technology.
Document Structure. Within the remaining part of the introduction a review of relevant results of ongoing and previous projects is given. The second part of this document describes the parameters that were chosen for the statistical evaluation as well as it shows how they fit to the different types of distribution curves. In the following sections of this document the resulting reference grid parameter table is presented and the grid topology for the reference grid is discussed. Finally a representative implementation of such a reference grid is proposed that can be seen as some kind of “user advice” for the generation of a COTEVOS reference grid.
Document Structure. The structure of Exhibit 4.6-A is represented below. Field Name Description REQ ID Remedy ticket number for the Solution Request (REQ or WO#) where known Project Description Summary description of the project Requestor The source of the Solution Request, on an agency basis. Submit Date Date and time ticket was entered into the Remedy system (system timestamp). Status Pending = waiting for DIR Customer; Assigned = waiting for Solution Account Manager and Architect assignment, not actively being worked; Planning in Progress = evaluating request for complete requirements and obtaining DIR Customer representative approval; Implementation in Progress = actively working the request Request By Date Date this ticket needs to be completed by. Entered into the ticket when submitted by the Requestor.
