The objective of this Request for Proposal (RFP) is to procure F5 Viprion Load Balancer solution. The solution should provide high availability, redundancy, load balancing and centralized access policy enforcement for applications mentioned below and other applications with high availability and centralized access policy requirements.
In order to answer these two questions, we performed an empirical study in a graduate-level software engineering class at North Carolina State University during the Spring 2005 semester. As previously mentioned, there is no prescriptive guidance on ACP specification. The closest related work is Fontain’s mapping approach from KAOS specifications to Ponder policies [Fon01], as discussed in Chapter 2. However, it is difficult to compare ReCAPS with Fontain’s approach in an educational environment. Firstly, Fontain’s approach starts from KAOS specifications, which are expressed in a formal language. It requires significant training for a group of undergraduate and graduate students to understand and use KAOS specifications, which is unsuitable for a class assignment in an educational setting. Secondly, the experimenter would have to manipulate the source documents and produce KAOS specifications from these source documents for the group that applies Fontain’s approach before the experiment. This results in unfair comparison because the two groups start from different inputs to derive ACPs. Thirdly, Fontain’s approach was published as a project report and has not been validated or peer reviewed. Since the work was published in 2001, there was no follow-up work available to the public. Due to the above concerns, we were forced to compare the ReCAPS with no method support at all. The subjects were thus separated into two groups: a ReCAPS group and a control group. The hypothesis for this empirical evaluation is that ReCAPS allows analysts to better specify access control policies than does the lack of a method (which is the current state of the art). This section presents the experimental method employed and discusses the results of the investigation.
The Tenderer(s)’s response shall include a Technical and Commercial Proposal with complete technical information and pricing details of their solution, products and services, which will meet or exceed Ashghal’ srequirements and specifications as described in this document.
4.7 Excess Elective Deferrals. If, pursuant to a salary reduction agreement, the Employer deter- mines the Participant’s Elective Deferrals for a calendar year would exceed the limits of Code Section 402(g), the Employer shall suspend the Participant’s salary reduction agreement until the following January 1 and shall refund any Elective Deferrals in excess of the limitation under Code Section 402(g) which the Employee has not contributed to the Participant’s Account. The Employer shall make all refunds described in the preceding sentence no later than April 15 of the following calendar year. Excess defer- rals, as adjusted for allocable income or loss, shall be withdrawn by the Participant no later than April 15 following the calendar year in which the excess occurred. Excess deferrals not withdrawn by April 15 will be subject to the IRA contribution limitations of Code Sec tions 219 and 408. Withdrawals of excess Elective Deferrals shall be made by notifying the trustee of the OppenheimerFunds Individual Retirement Account, c/o OppenheimerFunds Services, Retirement Plans Department, P.O. Box 5390, Denver, CO 80217, in writing, of the amount of the excess Elective Deferrals and request- ing OppenheimerFunds Shareholder Services to distribute the excess Elective Deferrals, as adjusted for allocable income or loss, by the appropriate April 15.
eligible individual (as defined in section 223(c)(1)), amounts contributed by such employee’s employer to any health savings account (as defined in section 223(d)) of such employee shall be treated as employer-provided coverage for medical expenses under an accident or health plan to the extent such amounts do not exceed the limitation under section 223(b) (determined without regard to this subsection) which is applicable to such employee for such taxable year.
Cassidy, K., Collins, S., Covone, F. V., Frost, D., Gallagher, D., Kenny, S., Kilfeather, E., Martínez-García, A., McGoohan, C., O’Neill, J., Redmond, S., Tang, J., Tiernan, P. and Webb, S. (2015) Building the Digital Repository of Ireland Infrastructure (R. Grant, J. O’Neill and S. Webb, Eds.). Maynooth: Maynooth University; Dublin: Trinity College Dublin; Dublin: Royal Irish Academy; Galway: National University of Ireland, Galway. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3318/DRI.2015.5
Supplementary Cementitious Materials are often incorporated into a concrete mix to reduce cement contents, improve workability, increase strength and enhance durability. The most common types of SCMs are fly ash, silica fume and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) as know simply as slag. More than one SCM may be incorporated into a mix while various types of blended cements are also available. The following standards establish the minimum requirements for some of the common SCMs and blended cements.
Section 3 When the Employer enters an area where conditions of employment have not been established pursuant to negotiations between the appropriate Local Union and the contractors in the area, the Employer and the Wisconsin Laborers' District Council will negotiate such wages and other conditions of employment as are necessary and reduce their understanding to writing. Section 4 The Wisconsin Laborers' District Council and the Employer shall have full authority by mutual agreement of both parties to modify wages in certain situations when it becomes apparent that the local economic situation demands it to insure that the work is done by union contractors. Section 5 FRINGE BENEFIT FUNDS:
22.1 If the Contractor fails to complete the Works by the Date for Completion of within any ex- tended time fixed under Clause 23.0 or sub-clause 32.1 (iii) and the Architect certifies in writing that in his opinion the same ought reasonably so to have been completed, then the Contractor shall pay to the Employer a sum calculated at the rate stated in the Appendix as Liquidated and Ascertained Dam- ages (LAD) for the Date for Completion or any extended date where applicable to the date of Practical Completion. The Employer may deduct such sum as a debt from any monies due or to become due to the Contractor under this Contract.
The quality of Software RequirementsSpecification (SRS) is critical. A good quality SRS must be clear, correct, consistent, unambiguous, modifiable, verifiable and traceable. Ambiguity is difficult to tackle; therefore, requirements elicitation technique should be effective. Published material related to SRS issues discusses ambiguity as the most conversed problem. In this survey, our focus is on one of the major quality issues i.e. ambiguity. There are many solutions to resolve SRS ambiguity but, there is no prescribed classification of these solutions exists. The survey to provide a summary of the huge research contributions in the form of developments and new techniques, models, and methodologies that have been recommended to control the SRS ambiguity and magnify the benefits of addressing SRS ambiguity in development projects. To organize this enormous work by researchers, we try to provide the main concepts and associations that together represent the field of SRS ambiguity. The study is important for further assessments of possible solutions to SRS ambiguity for the improvement of SRS that helps researchers and experts to compare these techniques for better results.
Under the notice, employers can choose a standard measurement period of three to 12 months for ongoing employees, which is to be used to determine whether an employee meets the definition of full time, thus eligible for coverage, during the following Stability Period. The Stability Period must be equal to or greater than the look-back period (but not less than six months,) during which coverage must continue to be offered, regardless of the number of hours an employee works during the Stability Period. Importantly, while an employer cannot define these periods uniquely for each new employee, the notice states employers may use measurement periods and stability periods differing either in length or in their starting and ending dates for certain categories of employees. These categories include:
Deriving functional requirements from the use case always takes place on the journey from ideas to executable software. The question is simply a matter of who you want to have doing that derivation and when. (See Chapter 13, “How Much Detail Do You Need?”) If you deliver only use cases without all the functional detail to developers, each developer must derive the additional functionality on his own. A developer with little requirements analysis expertise might overlook some of these requirements. It’s also unlikely that all developers will record the functional requirements they identify. This makes it hard for testers to know exactly what they need to test. It also increases the chance that someone will inadvertently fail to imple- ment certain necessary functionality. If you’re outsourcing construction of the software, you can’t expect the vendor’s developers to accurately determine the unstated functionality from a use case description.
*Evidence that an employee has used, possessed, sold, or solicited drugs while working or while on the employer's premises or while operating the employer's vehicle, machinery or equipment. If the testing is conducted on a "reasonable suspicion" basis, the employer must promptly record the circumstances which formed the basis of the determination that reasonable suspicion existed to warrant the testing. A copy of this documentation must be provided to the employee on request, and the original documentation must be kept confidential by the employer.
These particular definitions were able to sum up the main reasons for using RE for this thesis; first of all, as it is with OntEIR, RE also highlights the importance of real-life goals and situations, which is crucial for the development of the OntEIR framework, because they answer the important question of ‘why’ and ‘what’ of the system. The second reason is the ‘precise specification’, which is the goal to be reached by the analysis and the validation of requirements. And finally, the dealing with the evolution and the reality of changing specifications and the need to re-use partial specifications in a changing world, is also an important aspect introduced by OntEIR, and is supported by the use of RE.
Traceability links which are established by semi-automatic way, need visualization tool for proper requirements management in an incremental software development. Model driven development is used to produce artefacts, traceability links are defined manually which is labor-intensive and error-prone. For modelling and storing these artefacts relationship graph database approach is used. Treemap and hierarchical tree visualization techniques integrates overall overview of traceability. But hierarchical structure is not well communicated and not scalable. For evaluation process, tool processed against expected functionality of semi-automatic artefacts consistency management. Precision and recall describes the accuracy of traceability. It is more generic platform for artifacts without enforcing special methodologies .
● We envision this part of project being completed in 3 phases or iterations with the final iteration and testing to be complete by the 1st of September, 2015. After this there may be other functionality to add in but for now the project is to be broken into 3 phases as detail in the Initial High Level Requirements List at 2.3.
(ix)(I) provision of information, in formats that are usable by and understandable to one-stop center customers, relating to the availability of supportive services or assistance, including child care, child sup- port, medical or child health assistance under title XIX or XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq. and 1397aa et seq.), benefits under the supple- mental nutrition assistance program established under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), assistance through the earned income tax credit under section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and assistance under a State program for temporary assistance for needy families funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and other supportive services and transpor- tation provided through funds made available under such part, available in the local area; and