alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Role of Ontologies in Performance Evaluation

Lawrence A. Welsch, Ph.D. – LWelsch@nist.gov

There are many possible roles that an ontology

may have evaluating the performance of

intelligent systems. I only list some of the more

obvious roles that I see

Correctness of Results

Solutions to problems and answers to questions

from the system being evaluated may not always

be what is expected. For example, an expected

answer might be 4-wheel vehicle. The system

being evaluated might respond go-cart, car,

truck, vehicle, tank, ice cream bar, or any one of

a number of answers. Car and go-cart are

probably correct answers. Truck may or may not

be correct, but is certainly a vehicle. Tank is a

vehicle, but not wheeled. Ice cream bar would

not even be close. An ontology would help make

those decisions rapidly.

Was the Explanation Correct

When performing a test of intelligence, the tester

may want to see an explanation of how the

answer was derived. An ontology can be used to

1. determine whether or not the knowledge

used in an explanation is consistent (may be

indeterminate within the time allotted);

2. determine whether or not the steps are

logical; and

3. whether or not a better explanation exists.

Why did the System being

Evaluated do X?

Sometimes judgements of performance are made

based upon the behavior of the system. If we

understand why the system is behaving as it is,

then there is not need to ask for an explanation.

However if we do not understand then we need

to ask why. An ontology can be used to

understand the behavior of a system being

evaluated and if it doesn’t then to ask why. If the

system being evaluated has made an incorrect

assumption in it’s explanation then an ontology

could be used to probe the rationale for the poor

assumption.

How Optimal was the Answer?

Different systems have different quantities of

knowledge, represented in different ways. Given

absolute or total knowledge of the problem

domain, then how good was the answer, solution,

explanation given by the system compared with

the best possible answer, solution, explanation

for the problem/question.
SABIT TARGETS FOOD PROCESSING

----

**March 1998**
**by Karen Lazar**
U.S. companies in the food-processing and packaging industry have the opportunity to host agroup of  interns from Ukraine who will visit the United States in June under the auspices ofSABIT,  the Special American Business Internship Training program.  The Ukrainian internswill visit the United States through SABIT's Ukrainian Regional Investment StimulationProgram (URISP), one of several specialized programs introduced in 1998 which will have aregional focus in addition to an industry-specific theme.
URISP was established to train business owners, managers, and consultants from Ukrainiancompanies, nongovernmental organizations, institutions of higher learning, and regionalgovernments.  Interns are chosen from regions in Ukraine that are committed to market reformand are attempting to stimulate and revitalize their private sector.
**Visits to U.S. Companies**
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 16, 2004, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Steel Tank Institute (“STI”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: Steel Tank Institute, Lake Zurich, IL. The nature and scope of STI's standards development activities are: To develop, promulgate and publish voluntary consensus standards, recommended practices and installation guidelines for the manufacture, installation, testing and inspection of underground and aboveground shop-fabricated steel storage tanks. STI standards ensure that underground and aboveground shop-fabricated steel storage tanks meet standards for safety and reliability so that users and other members of the public are assured that such tanks are properly manufactured, installed, tested and inspected. STI's voluntary consensus standards are developed by STI members and other interested parties who wish to participate in the process.

Additional information concerning STI can be obtained from Wayne Geyer, Executive Director, STI, at (847) 438-8265 (ext. 234).

Dorothy B. Fountain, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-25847 Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### § 997.1 Definitions.

*Certification.* For purposes of these regulations, the term “certification” means the granting by NOAA of status to a non-federal entity as a participating RCOS of the System authorized by section 12304 of the ICOOS Act. An applicant will not be considered to be participating in the System unless 1) it agrees to meet the certification standards issued by the Administrator issued herein, and 2) the Administrator declares the applicant to be part of the System as a certified RCOS.

*Equipment.* For purposes of these regulations, the term “equipment” is defined as a tangible asset that is functionally complete for its intended purpose and has a capital cost of over $5,000. Both individual sensors and collections of sensors on a platform are considered equipment and are subject to the $5,000 minimum cost.

*Non-Federal assets.* The term “non-Federal assets” means all relevant coastal and ocean observation technologies, related basic and applied technology research and development, and public education and outreach programs that are integrated into the System and are managed through State, regional organizations, universities, nongovernmental organizations, or the private sector.

*Owned and/or operated by the RCOS.* The term “owned and/or operated by the RCOS” means non-Federal Assets that are either owned and/or operated directly by the RCOS, or supported financially in part or in full by the RCOS.

*Regional Coastal Observing System (RCOS).* The term “regional coastal observing system” means an organizational body that is certified or established by contract or memorandum by the lead Federal agency (NOAA) designated in the ICOOS Act, and that coordinates State, Federal, local, and private interests at a regional level with the responsibility of engaging the private and public sectors in designing, operating, and improving regional coastal and ocean observing systems in order to ensure the provision of data and information that satisfy the needs of user groups from the respective regions. The term “regional coastal observing system” includes regional associations described in the System Plan.

*Employee of a Regional Information Coordination Entity.* The term “Employee of a Regional Information Coordination Entity” means an individual identified in § 997.23(d)(3) or (f)(1) of these Regulations and satisfies the requirements listed in § 997.26(c).

*System.* The term “System” means the National Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System established in accordance with section 12304 of the ICOOS Act (33 U.S.C. 3603).

*System Plan.* The term “System Plan” means the plan contained in the document entitled “Ocean.US Publication No. 9, The First Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Development Plan,” as updated by the Council under these regulations.
March 26 , 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

KAREEM MCCANE HUEY , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00151

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order ap pellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

301 Fannin Street

Houston, Texas 77002-2066

October 31, 2012

RE: Case No. 01-11-00439-CV

Style: In the Matter of C.L.S.

 

Today the First Court of Appeals issued an opinion(s) in the abovereferenced cause.

A copy of the opinion(s) can be obtained through Case Search on our Court’s 

webpage at:

http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/.

T. C. Case # 56309 M. Karinne McCullough, Clerk of the Court

JIMMY PHILLIPS JR.

P.O. DRAWER 29

ANGLETON, TX 77516-0029

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

301 Fannin Street

Houston, Texas 77002-2066

October 31, 2012

RE: Case No. 01-11-00439-CV

Style: In the Matter of C.L.S.

 

Today the First Court of Appeals issued an opinion(s) in the abovereferenced cause.

A copy of the opinion(s) can be obtained through Case Search on our Court’s 

webpage at:

http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/.

T. C. Case # 56309 M. Karinne McCullough, Clerk of the Court

MARY PETER CUDD

229 E. CEDAR

ANGLETON, TX 77515
|                         |
|-------------------------|
|                         |  |  |  |
| September 16, 2016 |   | By | /s/ Christopher L. Conway |
| (Date)                  |   |   | Christopher L. Conway |
|                    |   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |   |   |   |
| September 16, 2016 |   | By | /s/ David J. Fallon |
| (Date)                  |   |   | David J. Fallon |
|                    |   |   | Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer |
§ 1112.43 What are the grounds for denial of an application? ( a ) The CPSC may deny an application for any of the following reasons: ( 1 ) Failure to complete all information, and/or attestations, and/or failure to provide accompanying documentation, required in connection with an application within 30 days after notice of a deficiency by the CPSC;
( 2 ) Submission of false or misleading information concerning a material fact(s) on an application, any materials accompanying an application, or on any other information provided to the CPSC related to a third party conformity assessment body's ability to become or to remain a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body; or
( 3 ) Failure to satisfy necessary requirements described in § 1112.13, such as ISO/IEC 17025:2017(E) accreditation by a ILAC-MRA signatory accreditation body for the CPSC scope for which acceptance of accreditation is being sought.
( b ) The CPSC's denial of an application will follow the process described in § 1112.51.
[78 FR 15865, Mar. 12, 2013, as amended at 86 FR 22866, Apr. 30, 2021]
From: "Cassidy Mike" < MICHAEL.CASSIDY@kohler.com >

To: Jeff Telander/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 06/22/2010 02:32 PM

Subject: RE: Clarification Of Kohler Testing Proposal

Jeff,

As requested in this morning's telephone conversation, attached is a

listing that summarizes our scope of work proposal for the ICR. Our

proposal involves:

1) Kilns: Testing all (6) of the 1F tunnel kilns listed in the ICR

with changes made to test for PM filterable (RM5 front

- half) rather than

PM2.5 and to only test cooling stacks that measure 20.5% oxygen or less.

During the emissions test program, all tunnel kiln stacks will be

measured for oxygen levels and stack gas flow (Ref Meths 1

- 3).

2) Ware Dryers: Testing five of the 6 w are dryers listed in the ICR.

Some dryers have multiple stacks, and representative stacks will be

tested as shown in the attachment. For any stack not tested, air flow

(RMs 1&2) will be measured during the emissions test of the dryer.

3) Spray Booths: T esting 10 of the spray booths identified in the ICR.

All 1F glaze is spray applied in booths with wet (water) overspray

control devices; no dry filter booths are used. Glaze is applied with

identical spray gun technology, but guns can be operated robotica lly,

automatically (fixed gun location), or manually. The 10 booths we've

proposed to test include 4 robotically controlled, 3 automatically

controlled, and 3 manually controlled. Emissions from these 10 booths

are representative of emissions of all othe r booths in operation as they

are all similar in booth design and spray technology. Our proposal

includes testing for PM filterable (RM5 front

- half) rather than PM2.5

filterable, and to estimate metals emissions based on glaze composition

rather than RM 2 9.

We also discussed the following approaches to completing the ICR:

1) Using more than one test contractor to shorten turn

- around time: We

agreed that involving more than one contractor may introduce variability

into the results that is unacceptable f or HAPs such as D/F and metals

that may be emitted in ultra trace quantities and that it makes the most

sense not to introduce this variability, so one contractor and

analytical lab will be used.

2) Shortening the analytical time and ERT submittal: We w ill solicit

proposals for priority TATs and will select a contractor familiar with

EPA's ERT to help expedite results transmittal to EPA.

This information is intended to supplement our written proposal

submitted to you on June 10, 2010, and requests written approval of this

proposal. Please contact me with any questions.

Mike
#### John A. Dursi, Inc., Appellant, v. Daniel Tardy, Respondent, and Gem. Tire Co., Inc., Undertenant.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Gerald J.Burnett, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of Avistar CommunicationsCorporation;

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)               Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)              Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)               Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

a)               All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)              Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

| Date: March 22, 2007       |     |     |
|---------------------------------|----------|----------|
| /s/ GERALD J. BURNETT           |     |     |
| Gerald J. Burnett               |     |     |
| *Chief Executive Officer*       | * * | * * |
| *(Principal Executive Officer)* | * * | * * |

 

----
### SUBCHAPTER XIV—GRANTS TO STATES FOR AID TO PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED

#### Repeal of Subchapter; Inapplicability of Repeal to Puerto Rico, Guam, and Virgin Islands

Pub. L. 92–603, title III, §303(a), (b), Oct. 30, 1972, 86 Stat. 1484, provided that this subchapter is repealed effective Jan. 1, 1974, except with respect to Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 27, 2017

No. 04-16-00563-CR

Jon Eric Adam ANDRADE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR4070

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

 By order of this court dated January 26, 2017[1], Patrick Montgomery has been removed

as appointed counsel for appellant in this appeal. We therefore abate this appeal and remand the 

case to the trial court to appoint new appellate counsel. We order the trial court clerk to file a 

supplemental record containing the trial court’s order of appointment by February 8, 2017. 

The trial court is ORDERED to admonish new appellate counsel that this appeal has been 

pending since September 2016, the record is complete, and the appellant’s brief will be due 

March 9, 2017. The trial court must further admonish counsel that the Fourth Court of Appeals 

will disfavor motions for extensions of time to file the appellant’s brief.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

 

[1]This court’s order was issued in a sanctions proceeding ancillary to appeal number 04-15-00596-CR, Isidro 

Espinosa Solis v. The State of Texas, appealed from the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, trial 

court cause number 2014CR2691, and appeal number 04-16-00081-CR, Ricardo Martinez, Jr. v. The State of Texas, 

appealed from the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, trial court cause number 2013CR6697.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of January, 2017.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
### §10512. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 10512 was editorially reclassified as section 50111 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### Sintercast Corporation of America, Inc., Appellant-Respondent, v. Everglow Lighting Fixture Co., Inc., Respondent-Appellant.

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property and for other relief, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order as denied its motion (1) for summary judgment; (2) to strike out defendant’s counterclaim for insufficiency; (3) to require defendant to make the counterclaim more definite and certain, and (4) to require defendant separately to state and number causes of action contained in the counterclaim. Defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its motion for summary judgment .dismissing the complaint and for severance of the action as to the counterclaim. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Ñolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur.
T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-14-00456- CV In re Dire ctor y Assistants, Inc. ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TO M GREEN CO UNTY M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N The pe tition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Rose and Goodw in Filed: Jul y

29, 2014
Exhibit 10.63

SCS CONTRACT NO. SCS-28699

Amendment Two (2) to the

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT

FOR THE PURCHASE OF CHEMICAL AND/OR GAS
PRODUCTS

OF THE

MASTER AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF CARBON

BETWEEN

RED RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTS, LLC

SELLER

AND

SOUTHERN COMPANY SERVICES, INC.

BUYER

RECITALS

WHEREAS, effective June 5, 2008 the parties entered into a contract for the purchase and sale of activated carbon
(hereinafter Contract), and

WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend such contract:

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual agreements, promises and covenants herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:

Change the wording in Section 34.8 to read as follows:

34.8 Conditions to Close

This contract is contingent upon the Financial Close of the debt financing for Red River
Environmental Products, LLCs first production line prior to March 27, 2009, and Supplier shall so advise Purchaser when such financing closes, identifying the lead bank. In the event that Supplier fails to close the Financing then
this Contract shall terminate and the Parties shall have no further obligation whatsoever to each other.

Except as amended by this
Amendment Number One (2), all provisions and terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the Parties have duly executed this Agreement in their respective corporate names as of the 25th day of February, 2008.



|                                      |  |                     |  |                                  |  |        |  |                   
|------------------------------------- |  | ------------------- |  | -------------------------------- |  | ------ |  | ------------------
|Red River Environmental Products LLC, |  |                     |  | Southern Company Services, Inc.,
|                                      |  |                    
|(Supplier)                          |  |                     |  | (Purchaser)                   
|                                      |  |                     |  |                                 
|By:                                   |  | /s/ C. Jean Bustard |  |                                  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Robert C. Self
|Name:                                 |  | C. Jean Bustard     |  |                                  |  | Name:  |  | Robert C. Self    
|Title:                                |  | Manager             |  |                                  |  | Title: |  | Sourcing Manager  
|Date:                                 |  | Manager 2/25/09     |  |                                  |  | Date:  |  | 02/26/2009        



Page l of 1