text:
Notice: This Wiki is now read only and edits are no longer possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.
Requirements Model
< To: ORMF
Please note: The new requirements model is now available here. This page is useful for historical purposes. |
This page describes the new requirements model, which is now based on the EMF framework. The model is currently defined only at a high level and will iteratively refine over the course of the next few weeks.
While the sections below describe the model in broad strokes, the actual ecore model may be accessed from the SVN repository. The repository is located at <https://dev.eclipse.org/svnroot/technology/org.eclipse.ormf> and the project that contains the ecore model is <trunk/analysis/org.eclipse.ormf.analysis.model>, with the actual model residing in the "model" folder. (Thanks to Rich and Achim for pointing out the missing link to the actual artefact).
The brief Requirements Statement may also help in guiding through the discussion on the required model.
The high level view of the model
The figure below shows the initial high level analysis model for the ORMF requirements. At this stage the model simply reflects the main elements and their mutual relationships.
Requirement Artefact
At the highest level of abstraction we have the Requirement Artefact, which represents all general features that are shared by all types of requirements. The Requirement Artefact has two specialisations, namely the Requirement and the Requirement Narrative elements.
The Requirement element represents standard requirements, which can then be further specialised into Functional Requirements or Non Functional Requirements. Requirements may be specified by other Requirements, in a parent/child relationship.
Requirement Narrative
Requirement Narrative elements are types of Requirements Artefacts that expect descriptive elements, such as flows of events. A Requirement may be associated with (and traceable to) a Requirement Narrative element. Special cases of Requirement Narratives are User Story and Use Case elements. A Use Case element in particular may have associations with (refer to) a number of Actor elements and zero or one Use Case Package element.
Requirement Elucidator
Any Requirement Artefact element may then contain a number of relationships to Requirement Elucidator elements. Requirement Elucidators are elements that may be utilised across a number of different types of Requirement Artefacts and that permeate the entire requirements model. Examples of Requirements Elucidators are Issues, Glossary Terms and Notes. The distinguishing features of Requirements Elucidator elements are a) the fact that each Elucidator may be referred to by multiple Requirements Artefacts (f.i. a Note may be related to, or elucidate, any number of Requirements Artefacts) and b) the fact that it is possible to compile lists of all Elucidators of a given type defined across the entire requirements model through generic reporting tools.
The model shows all the types of Requirement Elucidators we intend to support.
Any Requirement Artefact element is characterised by relationships with either other Requirement Artefacts (named "requirement relationships" in the model) or Requirement Elucidators (named "elucidator relationships" in the model). These relationships have many features in common, such as their stereotype, which defines the type of Requirement Artefact or Requirement Elucidator that is referred to as the target of the association, or their multiplicity. As such, these associations could be described by a common association class, generically called Relationship. The problem with doing this is that EMF does not support association classes. This is the reason why the Relationship element shown in the model is currently sitting in a corner as a simple reminder.
Requirement Document and Augmentation Text
The model finally defines two other types of elements, namely Requirement Document and Augmentation Text.
A Requirement Document represents a textual artefacts that acts as a "wrapper" around specific sub sets of Requirement Artefacts. A good example of this type of element is the Software Requirements Specification document, which is typically a high level survey of all functional, non functional and use case related requirements for a software project or for a specific component of the project. The analyst typically organises the survey in a particular way, that needs to be reproducible through the natural evolution of the requirements and that needs to contain sections of descriptive text that acts as a cohesive agent for all requirement artefacts proper. Examples of such sections are introduction, overview of the problem domain etc. This text is what the model refers to as Augmentation Text, which is represented as a separate model element; any Requirement Document makes use of an arbitrary number of Augmentation Text elements.
Current questions
- How to represent the association class Relationship in EMF?
Please enter comments below by selecting the edit icon to the right. You will need a Bugzilla account to add comments.
Discussion point
Nitpicking: The Requirements parent/child relation should have a cardinality of 0..1:0..*
I just realized that I might have mismatched the cardinalities of parent/child and Requirement/Requirement Narrative. Would you please attach the model files to this page so we can look at the details directly.
I'm quite sure that Requirement, Requirement Narrative, Req Artifact and Req Elucidator are abstract classes. I for one like this information in the model, but this is a matter of personal preferences.
--Achim.Loerke.bredex.de 08:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the missing link to the model file.
Yes, all the classes you mention as abstract actually are abstract in the model, the diagram is a bit flaky and shows them as abstract at times, but keeps on reverting back.
I will also fix the cardinality in the parent/child relationship.
--Barbara.Rosi-Schwartz.Etish.org 15:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Discussion point
I would like to suggest an important refinement: requirement versions Actually, every artefact any role will produce will actually be some version of that artefact, which, as far as I understand, ORMF will have to be able to deal with.
Another question is, why parent-child relationships between requirements are modeled explicitly when the model already contains the more generic "req relationships" relation on the Req Artefact level. Consequently, that generic relationship should be expressed using the Relationship class from which more specific relationships can be derived.
One more minor point for a suggestion would be to include "Design Constraint" or another, more general, constraint class as specialization of Requirement into the model, since constraints are a frequent thing to deal with in specifications. Constraints do not always map onto non functionals, so I would not treat them as specializations of the Non Functional class.
I am not sure, if it is wise to restrict the ability of packaging to Use Cases alone. I have worked with requirements packages quite effectively in the past. Maybe we should allow any Req Artefact to be packaged?
Another interesting point is the level of modeling abstraction covered here. If we view the requirements process from some distance away, it usually starts with some business vision or broad goals. These goals are often refined into capabilities required to achieve those goals, which are then captured in business rules or business processes (or simpler flows). To my understanding, these elements are as important as Use Cases or User Stories and provide similar information (just on a different level). I therefore would kindly ask you to explain why Use Cases and User Stories are children of Requirements Narrative, while Vision and Goals are missing and Business Rules and Flows (or processes) are only elucidators? I am not sure if I have understood the difference between elucidator and narrative properly.
--firstname.lastname@example.com 09:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the many interesting points you brought up.
Versioning: it is definitely a very important topic and one that we get asked about often by interested parties. However, it is also a rather complex issue, and we have always made it clear that, while we desire to implement versioning at some point, we cannot tackle it in the first release(s) of the framework, simply due to lack of sufficient resources. We also see it as an implementation issue more than a core requirement model issue, so we do not really feel that it is appropriate for us to include it in the model at this point in time.
"parent/child" relationships vs. generic "req. relationship": the reason they are separate is that we view the first type of relationships as bidirectional ones: in the case of standard requirements, we have a tree hierarchy where any parent knows about its children and each child know about its own parent. The generic inter-requirement artefacts relationship is instead uni-directional in nature. For example, a base use case does not know about its extension use case; a requirement artefact may have a weak dependency relationship to another artefact (i.e. a simple reference), about which the referenced artefacts knows nothing.
Design Constraints: your suggestion of including them in the model is definitely interesting and appropriate, I think. However I do not understand why you view a Design Contraint as a type of Requirement object. Should it not simply be a class on its own, that any Requirement Artefact may use?
Vision, Goals and Business Rules: I agree with you that Vision should appear in the model. I am not sure about Goals, as I am not familiar with formal Goals specifications -- perhaps you can provide me with examples. As for Business Rules, we have them as Elucidators at present because we view them as finite rules that apply to and elucidate specific aspects of requirement artefacts. I am aware of the fact that, in some projects, Business Rules occupy a far more central position in the requirements model and are types of requirements themselves. However ORMF is not going to be a business rules engine or a tool to manage business rules in a big way. What I think is important is that we keep that whole aspect in mind and that we provide hooks that allow to invoke one of the existing business rules management systems if and when needed for a specific purpose.
--Barbara.Rosi-Schwartz.Etish.org 16:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Barbara,
thanks for your quick reply.
I don't want to start any flame war here, but I consider change management a core facility of ORMF - without this it is a lot less attractive - or shall I say "useful"?. Linking use cases to requirements can be done with quite many tools on the market, some are so cheap you wouldn't care that they are not open source. ORMF in my opinion, must provide some benefit not available elsewhere. I also consider the versioning issue to be far too complex to be left "for later" or to be seen as implementation issue. The less you care for this when modeling your domain, the more difficult it will be to be implemented properly later.
On the relationship issue, we have misunderstood each other. As far as "uses", "extends" or "includes" relationships are concerned, I agree, those are mostly unidirectional. There exist many more relationships between requirements which are not parent-child (in fact, I have only seen this kind of relationship in very few projects), but are, as you stated bi-directional in nature: derivation, coincidence, contradiction, crosswise influence, to name a few. I would suggest to have two abstract relationship bases, a unidirectional one and a bidirectional one, of which parent-child is only one of many possible specializations.
Design Constraints could be their own class, that is true. I have seen them as special form of requirement, since that is simply the way we have treated them all the time. They state something that must be followed or obeyed like any other requirement (even in the same formal way), but can not be easily allocated as functional or non-functional requirement. Frequently, they are tied to some other functional requirements and may as such be seen as some form of elucidator, but I feel that is already too weak.
On the question whether Vision or Goal should be part of the model, well that depends on the scope of your modeling. The larger the scope (the more "enterprise" it gets), the more important will those be and the more information will be represented by those elements. And often it is those elements that "survive", while detailed requirements get rewritten frequently. They represent significant value for the overall understanding and objectives of the whole endeavour - guiding analysts and developers down the road.
The point is traceability. Not that tool-centric linking, I speak of understanding why some requirement is there and why it is there in that form. These overarching guidelines, objectives or, well, goals, are, in my opinion, a central part of every specification. They represent the glue to tie those hundred and so many requirements together that make up some system. I have worked on too many projects in the past, where exactly that happened: everyone knew the many detailed requirements, but noone understood why they were there - and consequently nobody understood the true ramifications of changes of the details.
Another point that came up during the last couple of minutes: we have use cases and user stories as narrative elements. If we have only those, they must exist on several levels of abstraction (see the many articles of Cockburn on Crystal or use cases in general) for the various levels they can span. In that case, use cases should have the possibility to have bi-directional relationships among each others.
Finally, I would like to ask you to specify what you consider a Requirement (no, I am serious). I have the impression that my understanding is far more general than how you see them. Just to avoid future confusion.
--firstname.lastname@example.com 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
First off I want to say that this is great conversation and I am really pleased that the team and other contributors are now able to discuss these matters in detail. Keep up the insightful thoughts and have no worry about flame wars; what we need now is open exploration of what the project is about and were it going.
I just want to comment on the matter of versioning at the moment. Please do understand that I and Barbara fully understand the value of good versioning. (In fact is was the versioning capability that was most attractive about OSEE.) Without it traceability is at very best half baked. I also agree with you that it is so invasive into your model that tackling it as an after thought either leads to significant rework or a shabby job of it.
In my opinion, though, if we tackle versioning in the initial release we will most likely never deliver anything. At the moment, to be honest, B. and I are the only ones who are actively contributing to the development. On that basis of resourcing it is already terribly scary when I think about the amount of work involved. To add another major feature daunts even my hutzba.
I would also mention that when B. said "an implementation detail" what she was really saying is that it is a technical detail. This early in the model exploration I do not think it should be encumbered with these details because they make the model harder to understand from the users perspective. If I get convinced over the next couple of months that we can do versioning, then we can add it to model then but before the model is so concrete that it is difficult to do so.
Btw, for the record, there is work in the EMF community that we may be able to use to get versioning for free or near so. I need a lot more research into these, however, before being brazen enough to count on it.
--Joel.Rosi-Schwartz.Etish.org 19:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
here's my reply to your comment above point by point.
Regarding versioning, I agree with what Joel has already replied above and do not really have anything to add.
Concerning relationships, your idea of generic bidirectional relationships is a good one and I will add it to the model.
As for Design Constraints, I still see them as ancillary to requirements, not requirements in their own right; however I need to explore them more deeply before expressing a final opinion.
I agree totally in the benefit of including a Vision and/or Goals into the set of requirements we support. Again, a deeper exploration of both these artefacts is required on my part to see what, if anything, we require in the model in the way of support for them.
In terms of use case/user stories different levels of abstraction, we have given some thought to this issue and our conclusion was that the best way to view it and to support it in the framework is to allow for customisable filtering mechanisms that the user can take advantage of, especially in the published version of the artefacts, to focus to the right level of detail for the purpose. In other words, the solution would be, in our view, a set of zoom lenses, if you like, that enable the reader to zoom in and out at different levels of abstraction. The detailed support of this feature still requires a good amount of thought on our part, but should not really affect the model if we make sure that the model is sufficiently complete to capture requirements at their most detailed level.
Finally, about my definition of requirement: do you want my definition of requirement as the generic word we use all the time in conversation or the Requirement type in the model?
--Barbara.Rosi-Schwartz.Etish.org 12:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion point
A generic requirements model?
After having taken some time to rething our discussion here I would like to raise the question whether we are taking the proper approach here, or not (thus the new discussion point).
The current ORMF model is neither the only requirements model out there, nor are we the first ones to develop such a model. Popular requirements models are (but not limited to) the Robertsons Volere model (2006), the RUP model (Leffingwell, Widrig, Kruchten 2003), the Hatley/Hruschka/Pirbhai model (2000), or the requirements model by Karl Wiegers (2006). All of them share some commonalities and expose several differences, but none maps easily onto the current ORMF model. What are we going to do about this? Are we expecting everyone who wants to use ORMF to abandon "their" model for the ORMF one? What would be the advantage of using ORMF as opposed to some other tool? Aren't we striving for a framework - i.e. a set of building blocks from which concrete tools can be built? What would that mean to our ORMF model?
I think we have the following choices:
1. We leave it as it is and expect people to change their way of modeling requirements if they want to use ORMF.
- in my opinion, ORMF would fail to meet one of its most important goals right from the start if we take this route.
2. We extend the current model and try to include the other concepts and models.
- I think this would bloat the ORMF model and make it unmanageable sooner or later. - And where would we stop? After we have included 2, 3 or 10 other models?
3. We identify the commonalities between a (arbitrarily chosen) set of popular models and adapt the ORMF model to allow a more straighforward mapping to increase the potential audience for ORMF. We might as well introduce additional hooks and extension points to make the model more "open".
- A potential approach, allowing to keep at least some part of the current model. - But we'll be missing the full potential of a true modeling framework.
4. We take a more generic approach, much in the sense of a modeling language to provide a framework (sic!) from which concrete requirements models can be derived (...parameterized, instantiated, etc.), maybe in the sense of profiles. I could imagine to have the generic ORMF model and concrete instantiations for RUP, H/H/P, Volere and others. This would make ORMF a true requirements modeling framework - at the expense of a more generic approach (more difficult?) and the need to instatiate concrete models (one more step to be considered).
- Although the most promising approach it will also be the most challenging one.
I have not come to a final decision yet , although I must admit, I do have a favourite. Nevertheless, I am sure this needs more in-depth deliberation and (hopefully) opinions and thoughts of other people.
--email@example.com 7:51, 02 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for these thoughts, Wolfgang.
I will attempt to explain what the existing ORMF model (and indeed the entirety of ORMF) is about and why we still feel, after reading your comments, it is appropriate.
First of all, let me throw the cat in among the pigeons by completely differing from your opinion that "The current ORMF model is neither the only requirements model out there, nor are we the first ones to develop such a model". All the "models" you mention in your example are, in actual fact, not models at all, but methodologies or processes/best practices for requirements gathering and management. In actual fact, our approach has been very much guided and inspired by RUP, as well as the requirements specific works by Leffingwell, Wiegler, Armour, Constantine et al. All these resources express wonderful, rich ideas on what requirements should be about, but in the end of the day they all rely on free textual documents/templates for the definition of those requirements. The same is true for the Volere approach (they offer a template) and, I guess, for the Hatley/Hruschka/Pirbhai methodology (I am saying I guess because, after a brief research, I cannot find any information other than their -- somewhat outdated -- book, no other publicly available information).
The novelty of ORMF/Useme lies precisely in the fact that we are, I believe, the first ones to propose to treat all requirements, including their textual descriptions, as structured elements, at least in the open world.
Automated tools would not be possible without this structured nature. Please note that I am not talking about requirements management: there are many tools out there that help in managing requirements by assigning them standard attributes (priority, risk level, dependencies etc.). What I am referring to is the actual requirement description itself, which absolutely needs a structured approach for automation to be possible.
In this light, the model we are proposing should not be viewed as the ultimate model for all requirements, a bit like the unified theory (aka theory of everything) in physics. It is to be considered as an artifice to enable the handling of requirements by automated tools and to provide auto generation of requirements documents that satisfy the needs of the methodologies you mention in your post. Another way to say this is that our model is not really a requirements model, but a meta-model or more precisely a DSL for the automated handling of requirements via any CASE tools that are built on top of ORMF.
Of course the model still needs to be extensible for the benefit of third party adopters, and indeed we very much want to carefully engineer it to enable that in the most straightforward way.
And of course, most importantly, all the methodologies you refer to (along with others that we have and are still exploring) need to be taken into consideration when deciding which elements and aspects of the various requirements models to include in ORMF for capture. This is, after all, what the survey of standards that we have launched is all about. Let me point out once again, though, that our model should not and will not be one of those standards; it will simply be able to support as many of them as possible in terms of the documentation that the ORMF based tools will be capable of producing.
In our view, the various templates/documents proposed by the requirements gurus to which you point represent the end product, not the starting point, of ORMF.
I hope this goes some way to clarifying where we stand and what this model is all about. This is a very fundamental issue, and it is really important that we are all on the same wavelength on it.
--Barbara.Rosi-Schwartz.Etish.org 12:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Barbara,
thanks for your answer. I am happy to find we have a similar understanding of what ORMF is supposed to be ("...our model is not really a requirements model, but a meta-model or more precisely a DSL for the automated handling of requirements via any CASE tools that are built on top of ORMF..."). That reminds me of the core point I wanted to address, but obviously failed to do so properly. The requirements models I have mentioned are in fact models and not processes or else, there you are wrong (I can point you to the literature or the tools where they have been implemented), but that was not my point. All I wanted to highlight, was the fact that I considered the ORMF model already far too constraining and too concrete to be a true Metamodel.
Since I am a visual person, I have quickly put together an idea of a model (really, take it as an idea only) of how I would like to understand ORMF.
The idea is, to keep ORMF abstract enough to be able to construct different requirements models, but yet to offer sufficient support to make use of the framework worthwhile. I would therefore be much more generic than the current model. The two basic entities are Artefacts and Relationships, which are all Taggable types, that is, they support being described by tags, that is named values. Both can be part of Packages, although each instance can only be at most in one package at any time. Independent from packages are Collections, which are arbitrary groupings of artefacts and relationships based on some Discriminator. These collections form the basis for RequirementsDocuments, which also nicely covers the versioning issue (consider a versioning tag as discriminator). Since one requirements model is often epxressed in several different documents depending on the stakeholder to be addressed, allowing to group artefacts and relationships independently from packages seemed advantageous. Artefacts have at most one Owner, which could be some stakeholder, the actual author, or any other role that has a special interest in this artefact. RequirementsElucidator, RequirementsNarrative and Requirement are the lowest level of entities that I would consider part of the framework - if I were very progressive. Don't drop this idea immediately, think about it for a second. I understand, there is value in modeling the level below, buit we might have to expand out current list of concrete elements to accommodate a wider audience, which comes at the cost of more and more elements.
As I said, the above is not a competing model, but my attempt to express my concerns with the current model and how I could imagine to find a way forward.
--email@example.com 15:11, 05 January 2009 (UTC)
Really great that you put your thoughts together into a diagram, it is a lot clearer and easier to discuss.
I will need a bit of time to think your model through properly, although I already find it as covering interesting points. In the meatime, I would really appreciate it if you cold spend a few more words to describe what Profiles are and how they would play in the overall scenario.
--Barbara.Rosi-Schwartz.Etish.org 16:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
when I speak of a Profile I mean much of what constitutes a UML Profile (see the OMG list of UML profiles for a description: [1]). In short, a profile extends the core model mainly with stereotypes, semantics and, to a lesser extent, with additional elements based on the core model. In our case, if we keep ORMF with Requirement and RequirementNarrative as core elements, one could extend, or better instantiate the model using these classes and tagging or stereotyping them to represent UseCase or UserStory, or in the case of requirements, to create PrimitiveRequirement, PerformanceRequirement and the corresponding children (potentially as new classes) RequiredCapability and RequiredConstraint. Those elements could have relationships (since all artefacts can have them), which we'll stereotype PerformanceDemanding and DesignConstraining and we would end up with part of the Hatley/Hruschka/Pirbhai requirements model (see "Process for System Architecture and Requirements Engineering, Dorset-House, 2000, page 28 and following).
The above diagram shows part of a potential profile. Whether we realize the classes in the diagram as true subtypes, by pure stereotyping, or by tagging only, is something that needs to be deliberated more deeply (maybe we leave it open in ORMF and allow users to do all?). The main point is, by having the building blocks available (packages, requirements, relationships, etc.) in the ORMF model, we enable people to build concrete models from them, which are then the basis for their tools and applications. In other words, we provide a framework for requirement modeling - which is what I understood is the true purpose of ORMF.
If, for some good reason, you might want to keep more specific elements, such as UseCase, since they are so frequently used, I will not stand in the way. My only concern is, that we must maintain the ability to express more than one concrete model in ORMF. This is also the reason why I mentioned those other models at all. When I first had a look at ORMF I tried to represent my own requirements model using ORMF and failed. But maybe it was only my crazy view of the world that caused the failure, so I consulted my little library at home and found a couple of other models and tried those. When I failed with all of them, I started to abstract away from the details and searched for the commonalities among these models, which is how I arrived at the diagram above. I am sure, it is not even near to be complete, but if it only communicates my intention properly my time spent with it was not a total loss.
--email@example.com 16:09, 06 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick add-on: You can fully express the original ORMF model using the building blocks of my concept (as you can express at least four other models I know) and maybe, if we want users to have a quick start, we can provide some of those models already with ORMF as sample profiles or instantiations of the framework. In fact, I would encourage all readers of this conversation to try to express their own models and views of requirements using the building blocks of both models and give us their feedback - the more we get, the better for ORMF.
I will, of course, not hide the price we will have to pay for being abstract: loss of details and especially loss of visibility of those unless the framework provides corresponding elements or handles to access them. This might lead to some "metadata-hell" as some of us might have experienced with (for instance) some xml-related technologies (remember DOM?), where you have to query some element for the name of some other tagged value to obtain the actual element from which to get the proper tag to identify the tagged value you are actually interested in... I guess you get the point. Well, you can take any technology or concept over its limits, but if we handle this carefully, I see a strong potential for ORMF to live up to its expectations. Looking forward to any constructive comments!
--firstname.lastname@example.com 16:28, 06 January 2009 (UTC)
At first blush, I very much like the direction that you suggesting. I want to take more time to work through the implications, the advantages and disadvantages, but I have the sense we are making progress on our goal of creating a model that will support an open framework.
You have mentioned a few other models that B. and I felt represented processes. You indicated that we were missing the point. I would very much appriate if you post pointers to where we can enlighten ourselves. The pointer to Hatley/Hruschka/Pirbhai book is good, but it requires going out and purchasing it. Any online references you have for this and the other models would be warmly welcomed.
--Joel.Rosi-Schwartz.Etish.org 16:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Wolfgang, I very much want to join Joel in his overall comment. I must admit that, while formulating our original model, we found ourselves struggling with the genericity and generality aspects, which your approach appears to promise.
I just want to add a small note: I really liked your suggestion "I would encourage all readers of this conversation to try to express their own models and views of requirements using the building blocks of both models and give us their feedback - the more we get, the better for ORMF.". On that basis, I think we may want to consider, once we have agreed on the way forward, to, in a sense, merge our standards survey with this effort by simply boning up the model a little, providing a couple of profile examples similar to the one you have already offered and ask the experts of any given standard out there if the model can successfully represent those standards. I think this would make the survey easier to approach on the experts part, as they would not need to fill in a lot of textual information, and ultimately more productive.
--Barbara.Rosi-Schwartz.Etish.org 17:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Barbara, Joel,
thank you for your comments and encouragement. Unfortunately I could not find any useful internet links to the models, so I have taken my books and have started to redraw the models to have them put here. Well, it will take some time, but here is the first one, the Hatley-Hruschka-Pirbhai model from their book on System Architecture and Requirements Management:
If I find the time, I'll put up an extract of the Volere Requirements Knowledge model up here this evening (it is already late here in central Europe).
--firstname.lastname@example.com 21:28, 09 January 2009 (UTC)
It went quicker than expected, so here is the specification part of the Volere Requirememnts Knowledge Model from the book "Mastering the Requirements Process", Robertson & Robertson, Addison-Wesley, 2006:
--email@example.com 21:45, 09 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
I very much like the direction the model is evolving to. I also think that only a quite abstract core model will lead to acceptance of the framework. I also think that the integration of other existing Requirements models could be made either by transformation, specialization of the core model elements in the form of a "white-box"-framework or profiling mechanisms. I have identified some things that I think were not optimal up until now. No the less the model is already very good for such an early state of the discussion. I have put together my thoughts in a model, since I think it will be easier to understand then. This model is not meant to be a competing model, but just as a way to express my understanding of a generic requirements model. My concerns about the presented model are the following:
1.) I don't think that the distinction between the different types of requirements should be made by specialization from Requirement. Instead I propose an Attribute that identifies the kind of the Requirement. First this is more flexible e.g. allowing different sets of kinds by exchanging the enumeration and second I think that distinguishing between Requirement Kinds adds lot of semantics to the Framework. Basically every Requirement must be fulfilled in the end.
2.) I inserted the element "Stakeholder". I think if responsibilities are in the scope of ORMF stakeholders should be addressed explicitly. Besides that, stakeholders are in every requirements definition I know, so I think they are basic enough to be addressed.
3.) I shifted the discriminator to DescribableElement (abstract) since I think not only the Documents but the RequirementAretfacts should have a Discriminator (maybe DescribableElement is no a good name for the abstract Type basically this element exists to reflect that the subtypes may have a Discriminator, a controlling Stakeholder –to reflect responsibilities, and a Status.
4.) The status reflects if the DescribableElement is accepted or if it needs more investigation. I didn't dig too much into this, but I think this should be covered too. I think it's also possible to model this as a part of a discriminator, but to me the status seems important enough to be modelled explicitly. There are possibly a lot of status I just added 2 to show what I intend for this item.
5.) I added the Relationship as a DescribableElement too. For relationship a distinction between different basic types should be made. I don't know if here Subclassing or the use of an Attribute is better. Some different Relationships I can think of are e.g.: Conflict, Parent-Child, Implied-by or Depends-on. I don't know if we should model for example the UML-UseCase relationships directly. Maybe they are not basic enough.
I hope i can add some new thoughts to this discussion and I hope for comments
Cheers, Veit
--Vhoff.lufgi3.informatik.rwth-aachen.de 12:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Veit,
sorry for the delay, but I have been pretty busy the last weeks. Let me first thank you for your comments and the time spent. Let me then reply to your comments one by one:
1) Indeed, attributes are a viable alternative as has been discussed among the ORMF committers already (you were probably not aware of this discussion). A final decision has not been made yet upon the way to go forward. Take the above model as a stimulus, not the final thing. Personally, I prefer attributes over inheritance for several reasons including the ones you mention, but it is not me alone who decides. Why have requirements types at all? Well, I agree, one could define them on demand, but my intention was to keep the original model as much as possible to highlight the points I wanted to address. Again, you are welcome in our discussions.
2) I included "Owner" for exactly this purpose. Maybe "Stakeholder" is the better term?
3) I assume there is a slight misunderstanding of the model. Any Taggable element (therefore any Relationship and any Artefact) can be part of a Collection. This is to reflect a very common scenario where a user groups arbitrary elements for some particular purpose (a release document, a report, a change request, or simply a working set or the user's favourite requirements - I think you'll get the point). A Document is only one of the many potential "users" of such a Collection. The purpose of the Discriminator element is, to allow the defining element of a collection to be manipulated, stored, retrieved, inspected, etc. - think of a Discriminator as some form of filter that can be applied to any collection of elements to obtain a specific collection (or filtered subset). Having the filter as an explicit element allows it to be applied in multiple scenarios, like filtering different sets of elements for the same date of last change, the same author (stakeholder), or the like.
4) Interesting point. I have considered the status of some Artefact to be of a more intrinsic nature, probably being modeled as simple attribute (Tag). Thinking about this a second time, however, I think I can understand your point. Maybe we should take this on board and extend it to represent the collection of potential states (we are doing a metamodel here) in, say, a "Lifecycle" element? This would also require to model the collection of States an Artefact can go through, and so on and so forth. Hmm, this may lead to a lot of complexity for something that could be expressed by a simple attribute. I think, the question is, how this would be used in practice. I have seen projects failing with carefully defined lifecycles for artefacts and others being successful with a simple lifecycle expressed by a simple attribute on each artefact and vice versa. On the academic side, of course, a Lifecycle element would have its charm. I am a bit undecided here. Maybe we'll get more comments on this from other people?
5) As I explained above, Relationships can be part of Collections just as Artefacts can. I guess, this covers your point. Whether we should Relationships also allow to have a Lifecycle - I don't know. It seems nice, but it will definitely make the model more complex (as any additional element would), so I am a bit reluctant.
Bottom line, I think we have to balance being specific enough to make the framework attractive and being generic enough not to constrain the user too much. Everything we specify has its two sides. The more specific we get, the easier and quicker users will be able to apply the framework, but at the same time the more we constrain the user in the way they can apply the framework, which might prevent the framework from being used at all under certain circumstances.
Kind regards, Wolfgang
--firstname.lastname@example.com 19:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion point
This is a comment I received from Francine Wolfe, a member of the LinkedIn Catalyze Community group, who agreed to share it.
Thanks for sharing this model; it's a good start, but I believe it needs more fleshing out -- especially around the items at the bottom of the page. One preliminary suggestion: Instead of "Functional" vs. "Non-Functional" requirements, I'd use the 6 types identified in the BABOK (Business, Functional, User, Quality of Service, Assumptions & Constraints, and Implementation). You may be able to find additional useful concepts in the BABOK (see www.theiiba.org).
My reply to Francine
Thank you very much for your very speedy reply. I am definitely aware of the fact the the model needs *a lot* of fleshing out. We thought we would put it out there at the very beginning of inception in order to gather comments as early as possible, to increase the chances of getting it right from the start.
Your suggestion of taking a look at Babok's recommendation for possible types is quite a good one and I will look into it very shortly.
--Barbara.Rosi-Schwartz.Etish.org 16:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Discussion point
This is a comment I received from Ali Nasir, a member of the LinkedIn RQNG group, who agreed to share it.
After reviewing the model I would like a little elaboration regarding User Story class. In my opinion Use Case Class should have some other relationships with the zero or one to many attributes like pre-conditions, pos-conditions, triggers etc related with use case. A use case can have dependency on one or more other use case so a relationship can be shown at high level to depict this scenario if required.
My reply to Ali
Hi Ali.
Thank you very much for taking the time to review the model.
We are definitely planning on modelling use case specific elements on which a use case depends, such as pre and post conditions etc. We have simply not reached that level of detail yet!... :-)
As for relationships between use cases, we have a generic relationship, called "requirement relationship", at the level of the generic Requirement Artefact class. This relationship is meant to include, among others, all inter-use case associations of the types that you mention. Such associations will have all the concepts that you would expect in, say, an include relationship, such as multiplicity and stereotype.
Thanks again, B.
--Barbara.Rosi-Schwartz.Etish.org 15:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion point
This is a comment I received from Ed Merks (yes, THE Ed Merks), who very kindly reviewed the model and agreed to share his suggestions.
I've attached an EMF project with the Ecore model modified to generate well-formed Java code, i.e., removing spaces from names. It includes the Ecore Tools diagram which looks like this:
Your spelling of artifact is not the usual English spelling, so I corrected that. Your use of plurals also wasn't consistent, so I consistently gave multi-valued features plural names. I very much dislike abbreviations so I turned "req" into "requirement".
Some things that strike me as odd. I.e., Relationship has not relationship to anything, which makes it pointless. I suppose many of the empty subclasses are placeholders where features will be added, otherwise one might argue that "functional" should be a boolean property on Requirement, rather than having subclasses. I don't get the sense that some references ought to be containment. I.e., shouldn't RequirementDocument contain RequirementArtifacts? Shouldn't packages contain UseCases and Actors? Shouldn't something contain RequirementElucidators? Given that a Requirement contains at most one RequirementNarrative, why make them separate classes? To get your containment structure right, think about the hierarchical nesting of these things in an instance; generate the editor and try to create an instance document...
Cheers, Ed
My reply to Ed
Hi Ed. Happy new year to you!
Thank you very much for your speedy review and for taking the time to actually change the model.
Regarding your first statement, we were actually thinking in terms of an analysis model, so all mundane and down to earth issues of well-formed Java code were still too beneath us!... :-)
I beg to differ on the artifact/artefact diatribe!... "Artefact" may not be the usual *American* spelling, but it definitely is the correct (and preferred) Queen English spelling. ;-) However, for the sake of conviviality, tolerance, cooperation and universal peace, I will be happy to stay with "artifact". Happy about removing abbreviations, I do not much care for them either.
As for the lone Relationship class in the model, I was hopeful you would shed some light on a workaround to that one. In my descriptive text I mention that the Relationship class would ideally be an association class, attached to both the "requirements relationships" and the "elucidator relationships" associations. I know however that, for well documented reasons, EMF does not support association classes, so I wonder how you would suggest solving that quandary. Something like an association class would be very useful as it would embody attributes that go beyond a simple association.
As you suspect, all of the classes in the model are going to be fleshed out considerably. We have decided to put the model out for comments and review at an early (very high level) stage in order to encourage improvements and corrections early on (in keeping with the old "the earlier the less expensive etc." adage).
Finally, thanks for the observation about containment; I agree I need to revisit the containment aspects of the model and your suggestion of using the generated editor as an aid may be a really good one.
Ed's further comment
My reply was followed up by Ed with the following pointers to how relationships are handled in EMF: a blog about associations for Ecore: http://ed-merks.blogspot.com/2008/01/modeling-associations-with-ecore.html and some work in progress: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=105920
--Barbara.Rosi-Schwartz.Etish.org 15:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Discussion point
Stepping back in order to move forward
First of all, I'd like to thank everybody for the comments, ideas and contributions. I think that very many good points have been brought to light and that the new requirmements model that will soon emerge will be much more solid and resilient than the original one.
Before we move forward with distilling all discussions into a new "starting" model, I would like to ensure that we are all on the same wavelength as far as the ultimate scope of ORMF and the role the framework intends to fulfil. I think this is extremely important in defining the shape that the requirements model will take.
ORMF is not intended as a framework for modelling requirements. Its main goal is to be able to capture information, produce reports and generate documentation that support the analyst in building the requirements set for the software project at hand.
In the vast majority of the real world projects where we believe ORMF will play a part, the requirements practitioner does not really care about the nature of the requirements model in and by itself. All she wants is a set of tools that automate her daily capture/publication/reporting/management tasks, ultimately enabling her to deliver a product that fulfills the stakeholders needs. I would wager that, in most cases, the analyst does not even want to know if there is a requirements meta model behind the scenes.
Of course the documentation that is desired, as well as the types of reports that would add value, may well have to adhere to company and/or global standards and best practices, as well as be able to follow company processes; these aspects must definitely be taken into consideration when designing ORMF. Whether or not ORMF is capable of expressing HHP or Volere or any other existing or yet to be conceived requirements model is not what we should be primarily worried about. Note, however, that after considering both of these I see that there is much we can learn from them to strengthen ORMF.
What I am trying to get at here is a concern I have that, in our enthusiasm, we are loosing sight of our stated goals. Believe me, I am always the one that needs to be restrained from wandering off into the land of academic exercises. As painstaking as it is to say it :-), I think we need to make sure that we place the model in the right perspective. At the cost of sounding like a ponderous bore, let me say it again: the requirements meta model is not the end of our effort, but simply a means to ensure that the average software project is assisted in the production and communication of its requirements.
Is everybody agreed on this fundamental point?
--Barbara.Rosi-Schwartz.Etish.org 16:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, which highlights what we should not forget.
I must admit, however, that although I agree with the objective, I do not agree with your conclusion. The metamodel clearly is not the end, but a means to an end. But for the framework it is more than that, it is the foundation upon ORMF is built, not more, but not less either. Get it wrong and ORMF will fail. Get it too generic and it will be of little use to many people. Get it too specific and it will be too constraining for many others. I think, we still need to find the proper balance. And I also think that there is value in building this model. In the end, it becomes the vocabulary by which an ORMF user can define what to be captured, the elements to be included in reports, or the kinds of relationships to be traversed looking for changes.
On the other hand I understand your concerns about getting too "academic". There is no use in a beautifully elaborated model if it misses the point.
Your statement about the "daily capture/publication/reporting/management tasks" might lead the way out of this situation. You reminded us of the main activities ORMF needs to support - let's elaborate on those to find out what ORMF needs to provide for each of them and rethink our model based on our findings there.
--Ormf.ib-ponikwar.de 19:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
What conclusion do you not agree with? From the rest of your post, I do not see where we have a difference in opinion whatsoever. In particular two phrase I find of note:
- "for the framework it is more than that, it is the foundation upon ORMF is built" - "it becomes the vocabulary by which an ORMF user can define what to be captured ..."
Possibly (hopefully;-) this is mostly about expressing ourselves clearly enough that we all see through the confusion.
--Joel.Rosi-Schwartz.Etish.org 20:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I apologise if I gave the impression that I underestimate the importance of the meta model or, worse, that I think we can do without it. We all agree that it is fundamental and that it is important to get it right at this stage.
As Joel stated, I do not see which conclusions I came to that you disagree with. All I wanted to ensure with my message was that we were all in agreement about the objectives of ORMF, and I think this has been accomplished. So, let's move on!... :-)
There are a few concepts, which are based upon the discussions and models proposed so far, that need, I think, further elucidation and that I would like for us to debate. My intention is to clarify these concepts in order to then move forward with a new version of the model. I am going to start a new Wiki page for the purpose. Please stay tuned.
--Barbara.Rosi-Schwartz.Etish.org 17:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


text:
I agree to receive text messages from Auto Concepts representatives and understand that no consent to texting is required for purchase of products or services.
9060 Long Point Rd , Houston , TX 77055 PHONE: (281) 241-1551
2017 Ram ProMaster Cargo Van 1500 Low Roof 136" WB Ready to GO!!!!
You can save multiple searches, so it's good to give some valid names to help you easily change filters.
Enter your contact details to get access to our e-price.
How would you like to be contacted?
Please, enter your contact information.
Please, select a date and time to book your test-drive.
Enter Your Friend's Information
Enter Your Information (Optional)
Enter your question here.
We've got your request. Someone on our team will get back to you shortly.
Complete the form below to check availability.
Enter your message here.
See how much you can get for your car today.
Enter your car's current mileage.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Our furnishings are comfortable, elegantly purposeful, and beautifully crafted to cross over — between offices and homes, meeting rooms, lounge and social spaces, and wherever else creative people want to feel inspired about their work day. We create workplace destinations that feel inviting; spaces that empower social connection, creative collaboration, personal focus & rejuvenation – to enrich our lives as much as our work.
ImageWorks Commercial Interiors and Coalesse provide award winning furnishings for anywhere your workers are looking for an inspirational place to work.


text: from A Moment of Christmas by Anna Rendell by Anna | Dec 1, 2016 | 0 comments Submit a Comment Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment * Name * Email * Website By using this form you agree with the storage and handling of your data by this website. We don't share your data. * Δ


text:
Independent Women's Forum, in a continued effort to set the record straight about the real reason for the statistical difference between men and women's earnings , releases an informative, stop-frame animation web video — Straight Talk About the Wage Gap . The video explains how women's choices ultimately determine how much they earn and how government intervention in the workplace can backfire on women.
Tweet us (@IWF) and let us know your thoughts. Lets discuss!


text:
Online Bill Pay
Cataract Candidacy Quiz
Last Updated: February 10, 2023
Authored By:
89 Sylvania Drive Dayton, OH 45440
6601 Centerville Business Pkwy, Suite 350 Dayton, OH 45459
77 E. Woodbury Dr., #100 Dayton, OH 45415
580 N. Main Street Springboro, OH 45066
1861 Towne Park Drive, Suite C Troy, OH 45373
Someone from our team will contact you within 24-48 business hours. Please Advise: if you have an emergency or need immediate assistance, please call our office directly at 937-320-2020 or call 911.
*Communications through our website or via email are not encrypted and are not necessarily secure. Use of the Internet or email is for your convenience only, and by using them, you assume the risk of unauthorized use.


text:
Open Full Navigation
We're sorry but the candle you have selected is currenty in the process of being purchased or has just recently been purchased.
Please feel free to select another candle or check back in 15 minutes to see if the candle you have selected has been released for purchase.
Thank you.
We're sorry but there are no candles available for lighting.
Thank you.
You have already begun a candle purchase session. If you would like to continue with your current candle choice please click "Continue" otherwise please click "Select Another".
Thank you.
The lighting of a Memorial Candle not only provides a gesture of sympathy and support to the immediate family during their time of need but also provides the gift of extending the Book of Memories for future generations.
Hawkins & Davis Funeral Home
17 Manor Road
Smithtown, New York
In the event that there is an error
in the information presented,
please contact the funeral
home by clicking here.
The Book of Memories™ is the most advanced permanent online memorial available for those wishing to pay tribute the memory of a loved one, friend or co-worker and we are pleased to make it available to the families and communities we serve.
The lighting of a Memorial Candle provides a gesture of sympathy and support to the immediate family during their time of need; but also illustrates, for future generations, how their loved one brightened the lives of those they knew and loved.
The poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning wrote, "I love thee to the level of every day's most quiet need, by sun and candle light...I love thee with the breath, smiles, tears, of all my life." When you take the time to light a Memorial Candle in tribute to someone who touched your heart and made a difference in your life, you are leaving a visual record of the depth and breadth of a connection made; a meaningful connection which you will long remember and treasure. If you wish to light a Memorial Candle now, click here. A permanent notice of your tribute will remain on the Book of Memories™.
Other features of the Book of Memories™ allow you to share a story, send a message of condolence or print sympathy card, and upload pictures. If you have any questions about how to use any of these many features, please speak to any one of our helpful staff.
The Family Interactive features takes the Book of Memories™ far beyond a convenient and informative place to learn about service information at the time of the funeral. This lasting memorial allows authorized family members to securely access their loved one's Book of Memories at anytime to expand and grow their loved ones tribute.
Ask your funeral director about the ever advancing features of the Book of Memories™ and how to receive a secure user name and password to this section.
The Book of Memories™ is made available to all families we serve as well as any family served by any other funeral home in our community. Please feel free to contact us at anytime if you would like to have a Book of Memories™ Memorial Website created for your loved one.
Cherishing Life Sharing Forever
This Book of Memories brings those affected by loss together by encouraging communication and self-expression. By giving friends and family a special place to tell their stories and express their feelings of loss, it helps them care for one another during a very difficult time. Click on any of the links to the right to access features or information within this memorial website.
Memorial Tribute Website Proudly Provided by:
Hawkins & Davis Funeral Home
17 Manor Road
Smithtown, New York, United States
Phone: 631-265-1810
Map | Directions | Contact Us


text:
After Viewing This Item People ultimately bought
The following are the cars which it will work with for your reference:
2015 2016 2017 2018 Ford Edge AUTO A/C |
- This aftermarket head unit with the latest Android system can support 4G network, allowing you to get access to internet at the highest speed you've ever had. The full touch screen also makes it stand out in the market with a large touch screen to greatly simplify the operation. As the newest representative for car head units, it features a wide range of capabilities to meet your different needs in your car. To choose a perfect road companion for fun and convenience, it's just this amazing head unit!
Features Overview
- 4G/3G&WIFI/App download/3D GPS Navigation/FM&AM Radio/Bluetooth/Dual Zone/File Management/HD 1080P/Steering Wheel Control/ Digital TV/Mirror Link/OBD2/DVR/Backup Camera/TPMS/MP3/AUX/USB etc.
Advanced Configurations
- OS:Android 10.0 system,fast and smooth operation
- CPU: 8 Core MT3561 GHz Cortex-A7, Main Frequency 1.3~1.5GHz Cortex-A7 ,more efficient computing capability
- RAM: 2G DDR3 RAM memory
- Hard Disk: Built in 32GB iNAND MLC, featured MLC particles, high-speed, stability, bring you long-term service life
- GPU: Integrated GPU with hardware support 2D/3D speeding, supports OpenGLES2.0 and OpenVG1.1, 1080P hardware decode, run more smoothly for the GPS Maps
- UI: Fresh unique user interface with dynamic graphics
- Display: Core board digital RGB888 direct drive, support multi-resolution,UXGA@60HZ1600*1200 max, higher definition and clearer display
- Screen: Full Touch screen control with dynamic graphic user interface, support larger screens above 13.6 inch car radio, clearer than resolution 1024*768 with the same interface
- 2 USB Ports: It comes with 2 USB Ports to meet your different needs of external devices, more choices for service and entertainment
Unique Features
- Latest Android System: Loaded with the most advanced Android 10.0 system, it offers the fastest and smoothest operation you've ever enjoyed.
- Prompt Response: Adopted 8 Core MT3561GHz Cortex-A7 CPU and high-speed iNAND MLC hard disk, this unit can start up within just 1 sec. And it only takes less than 2 seconds for sound, 3 seconds for rearview and 16 seconds for operation.
- High-speed 4G/3G/ WIFI Network: It comes with built-in WIFI network and can support the most up-to-date 4G/3G module, allowing you to easily get access to internet for online music listening, online videos watching, online games watching, e-mail checking, etc as long as you reach a WIFI hotspot or connect it to a 4G/3G module.
- Android Apps downloading: It can support thousands of apps downloading from Android market to meet your different needs, such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, M&N, Gmail, Skype, Google maps etc.
- HD Touch-Screen Display: It greatly simplifies the operation with a digital multi-touch screen which can support multi-resolution,UXGA@60HZ1600*1200 max, making it clearer than resolution 1024*600 with the same interface.
- 3D GPS Navigation: With 3D maps(maps in iNAND ), the best way to your desired destination is just in your reach within seconds. All the navigation information is available, such as the current location, speed, mileage, landmark building display,3D street view, destination search and turn-by-turn voice directions, etc. You can also download the latest Google maps app.
- Bluetooth for All Brands Cell Phones: It synchronizes your smart phone regardless of any brand with Bluetooth connection. The great convenience like Phonebook input, music playback and name search by A-Z are all supported. Hands-free calls and phonebook search on the large screen can greatly ensure your safety on the way. And Bluetooth music streaming just makes you feel relaxed all the way without any fatigue. The latest iPhone and Android phones can all be supported.
- Games Support: The HD 2D & 3D games are both compatible with this unit. A huge ton of excitement is just waiting for your families and friends in your car.
- Convenient One-key Functions: It supports one-key rescue, one-key navigation. The great convenience is just within your fingertip.
- HD Digital TV: DVB-T/ATSC/ISDB-T HD TV Tuner can be provided for receiving digital TV channels.
- Car DVR: The DVR function is used for recording the whole process of traffic accidents, taking photos for front of vehicles and storing the video in real-time while driving.
- 4G/3G module: With a 4G/3G module, you can easily get access to the internet in your car. The availability of the latest 4G network makes you enjoy the fastest connection to the internet you've ever had
- Mirror link: It synchronizes your mobile phone with this unit through WiFi or USB. This technology enables you to gain access to your smart phone's applications on the unit to play music and videos etc.
- Backup Camera: It adds a backup camera for automatically switching to the parking image while reversing. This option includes a waterproof and night vision backup camera which will be mounted to the position of your car's license plate lights and the cables for its connection. The default rearview camera is wired. If you need the wireless one, please send a note us after placing order.
- OBDII: With this OBDII Scanner, you can connect it to your car's DLC port and open the unit's Bluetooth for monitoring the car's fuel consumption, water temperature, revolving speed, environment temperature, intake pressure, throttle position, air flow, computer load, car speed etc in the OBD interface.
- TPMS: Perfectly connected with this head unit with simple installation, the TPMS reports real-time tire-pressure information via a pictogram display or a simple low-pressure warning light to help you save fuel consumption, extend the tire life, decrease downtime and maintenance and increase environmental efficiency. The early recognition of the malfunction of tires provided by TPMS can avoid traffic accidents to improve safety in the whole process of driving.
Video Parameter | |
Audio Parameter | |
System | |
Display | |
Bluetooth | |
Radio | |
4G/WiFi | |
USB / Micro SD | |
Multimedia | |
Amplifier | |
Input/Output | |
Optional Function | |
Parking and Shipping | |


text:
Many people are interested about knowing the lottery 1 / 2. These are the set of numbers in the lottery game along with how frequent they released in the sport. From the thousands of draws made, the statistics will provide help to realize the pattern of winning number combination. Statistically, you can set a plan that one is the most likely november 23 in recreation.
Like various other popular in Canada and then for any country in world, Lotto 6/49 jackpot prize rolls over draw on draw not really won. Comes around leads to big jackpots. In fact, a lotto group play of 17 employees from local gas and oil Company in Alberta won a stunning record of $54.3 million jackpot in October july 2004. During that time, a lotto fever had swept the whole of Canada, leading to at least a hundred purchases of lotto tickets every tiny. It was estimated that about two of three Canadians have bought lotto airfare. Amazing!
So how can we play for absolutely free? Some Online lottery syndicates would charge their members a degree of money per week, and put that money into purchasing more lottery tickets for the group. That way you are putting your in full good use, and putting your face to face more tickets for no-cost. Other sites offer discount coupons for free play step subscribe thus to their syndicate.
About 90 days after in which a friend of mine inquired about how with the lotto, since he knew I loved to play golf. The reason he was asking me was since he told me he saw a book online that supposedly offers the lottery secret formula, and would demonstrate how november 23 the sweepstakes. At first I didn't believe it, but figured I would read what he had as . So after going and also reading just a little more in this book Acquired intrigued. To start I would by course . with my next pay check. Even if it wasn't true course . was pretty cheap so however I figured it budding entertainment for me. So when I began reading I'm anxious observe if merchandise lottery secret formula appeared to be.
When you're making a big win at the Online lottery, avoid using hear from friends you've never spoken to in years. You will hear from cousins a person never knew existed. You may hear from complete guests! How did everyone find you without warning?
The most helpful feature of online keno is that it does not demand the players to learn any complex rules. Playing this game is as elementary as any lottery, luck being the main element that turns a gambler to successful. You simply choose amount of your choice. The casino draws twenty balls at random that have numbers on them; tinier businesses get displayed on a computer monitor. The more of your chosen numbers match, the more your bring home.
If a person like me, you have obtained at one time or another one of us infamous emails telling you that you've won a fantastic amount of income in a lottery you never even entered into your. It is these kinds of events help to make us ponder whether lottery pools are legitimate. Thankfully the majority of the lottery pools that merely fewer consider joining are great pools to become.
There are keluaran hk of wheels. Complete wheel, abbreviated wheel, and also the key number wheel. Complete wheel is good for folks who need to have the particular coverage involving most the cash incentives. It is expected when a person uses this wheel, he is going to have good chances of winning the jackpot as well as one other prizes. The abbreviated the a cheaper version with the full wheel. With this, you can easily more tickets with funds so that you have more chances of winning in lottery. The key number wheel on one other hand in a position to to give players variety of combination which is unique every and every player. So, when you win, shortly win the jackpot prize and other prizes on your own acording to this type of online lottery wheel.


text:
Recently Viewed Products
You can stop autoplay, increase/decrease aniamtion speed and number of grid to show and products from store admin.Me-O Cat Litter Apple 5 Ltr
We are delivering all over Pakistan. Raim.pk delivers seven days a week in between 9:00 am to 6:00 pm during the time slot selected by you which is made available on a first come first served basis.
Delivery charges are Rs 150 , However, for express delivery within 120 minutes Rs. 150 will be charged. For deliveries outside Lahore, an additional amount will be charged according to the volumetric weight of the items. The prices mentioned on the website are the final prices. However, if no one is available at the specified address at the time of delivery, we will reschedule the delivery and a fee of Rs. 150 will be charged for second attempt of delivery for deliveries all over Pakistan
The delivery date and slot can be changed by contacting our customer service team on 0330 4246888 or emailing us at firstname.lastname@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.com or at the website. If the order timing is changed once the order is dispatched, a fee of Rs. 150 will be added to the bill for all orders within Lahore.


text:
Thank you for your vested interest in the items we offer within our collection of aviation parts. All the civil aviation components we present have been sourced from top global manufacturers like Crane Company who follow the same high level of quality assurance that we uphold in our own facilities. Part number PLT78DR-HBRT220 is readily available for purchase at any time, and you can easily receive an instant quote for your comparisons using our RFQ service. Simply fill out the form below with details such as your desired part quantity and expected shipping time frame, and one of our team members will respond with a custom quote for part number PLT78DR-HBRT220 within just 15 minutes of reviewing your submission.
Note : We Will Not Share Your Information To Any Third Parties.
If you are interested in any other of our items or different aviation products, you may continue your search or peruse the related part numbers shown below. Additionally, you can view other components we feature by Crane Company with ease simply by clicking on the manufacturer's name. Start the purchasing process on part number PLT78DR-HBRT220 and/or any other products of interest today to experience how we can assist you in finding the aviation parts you need with time and cost savings.
"We Proudly Support Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund that serves United States Military Personal experiencing the Invisible Wounds of War : Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post Traumatic Stress (PTS). Please visit website (www.fallenheroesfund.org) and help in their valiant effort".
We Hope that You Will Visit Us Again the Next Time You Need Aircraft Parts and Make Us Your Strategic Purchasing Partner.
Request for Quote


text:
Today's housing market faces the lowest level of inventory in over 20 years, according to the National Association of Realtors. That supply is even tighter among the entry-level properties, making it doubly difficult for first-time home buyers to get a foot in the door. If you are considering your first home purchase in today's climate, here are some tips and whether you should buy a turnkey house, build a new one, or repair a fixer-upper property.
In a less competitive market, this is usually the most attractive option. Prices are slightly lower than new construction, and there are more options of style and neighborhood. That is not always the case today though. If you want to buy an existing, move-in ready home, you will have to be prepared with mortgage funding and a thick skin. The bidding wars can get crazy, sending buyers on an emotional roller coaster with each offer. It may take months to find a good house and get your offer accepted, so make sure your agent knows how to be aggressive and negotiate well.
It is also important to have a firm budget and look at homes under that number, so you have extra room to outbid other interested buyers.
Building a home from scratch is not usually recommended for first-time buyers but buying into a real estate development is a great option. While going with new construction may mean you have to wait several months to move, it also means that you can secure a contract without having to worry about bidding wars. Plus, you often get to pick out finishes and details to customize your home. Most builders offer home warranties that protect you against repairs during the first year or two.
However, today's builders are also limited by a lack of building materials, and increased lumber costs are getting passed on to the buyers in the housing prices. And new builds generally cost more than similar existing homes in any market.
Your last option is to buy a fixer-upper and renovate until it feels like home. Choosing a home that is less attractive to most buyers is a common way for first-time buyers to break into the market. In fact, a National Association of Realtors survey found that a quarter of first-timers compromised on the condition of their first house to be able to become homeowners. And fixer-uppers can sometimes still allow you to buy into a desirable neighborhood. You can do the renovations yourself to save money, or you can hire a professional if the work is beyond your skill level. Just be sure the required repairs fit within your budget and that they will increase the value of the property.
Whether you buy, build, or renovate, there are pros and cons. Hopefully at least one of these options will allow you to finally realize the dream of homeownership.
Give us a call today so that we can help you achieve the dream of homeownership.


text:
Excitedly (though I'm not sure why from the previews), I toddled off to the store only to find that it wasn't the March issue, but the Burda Plus Special for Spring/Summer 2013. I'd rather they gave me extra issues than missed some out so I bought it anyway and to celebrate the upcoming Chinese New year of the snake, I would love to give it away to one of you!
The giveaway is open to anyone - just leave a comment on this post and I will draw a name at random on 13th Feb - this will be Hong Kong time so get your comments in the day before to save an exercise in maths and time zones! Also, just to be clear despite the German image and Russian links, the giveaway copy is in English.


text:
Have questions? Contact our Sympathy Store Advisors anytime at 1-888-932-7658
At The Sympathy Store we understand that getting your gifts to their recipient quickly is important, so we do our best to process your order as promptly as possible. Orders are processed Monday – Friday. If your order is received after 12 noon EST it will be processed the following business day.
We ship via major carriers to any continental U.S. destination. We are unable to ship to international addresses, outside the continental United States, P.O. boxes or APO/FPO addresses at this time.
For personalized items, please allow 2-3 days additional processing time.
All flowers and sympathy plants are hand delivered by a local florist. These items are available for same-day delivery if ordered on Monday through Friday by 2pm or on Saturday and Sunday by noon in the recipients time zone, unless the delivery date falls on a major holiday. Please note that if your delivery location is more than 10 miles from the nearest florist, the florist may require an additional delivery charge. A Sympathy Store Customer Service Representative will contact you after your order has been submitted if an additional delivery charge is required. Your credit card will not be charged the additional delivery fee without your approval.
Morning Floral Deliveries
We do our best to pack and ship your order as quickly as possible. Since our systems are designed to begin this process immediately, you cannot change or cancel an online order once it is placed.


text:
As a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, this site may earn from qualifying purchases. We may also earn commissions on purchases from other retail websites.
Latest Posts
- The Turtle Whisperer and His Superhero Spaniels Help Save Box Turtles
- Lost Stuffed Animal Goes on Adventures Searching for Her Human
- Things We Forgot How to Do After Over a Year of Quarantine
- How the Pandemic Changed Americans' Personalities and Interests
- Backwards Dude: North Carolina Man Embraces His Unique Superpower


text:
Validate your measurements
This service assesses the quality of measurements of daily global irradiation or means of global irradiance acquired by a ground station. Measurements are checked against models resulting in a measure of plausibility. This service is free of use and can be integrated into routine operations and Web portals thanks to its interoperability capability.
More details:


text:
Woodworking for Wildlife
There seem to be no limits to the creative capacity of nature lovers, so one can find design specifications for structures for anything from a turtle to an osprey. Many different shapes, sizes, and designs are available for 'bird houses'. Boxes for secondary cavity nesters also come in all shapes and sizes to target dozens of species in Iowa.


text:
Graceful Charity BP02-EN137 Mosaic Rare Battle Pack 2: War of the Giants 1st Ed Yu-Gi-Oh TCG
You Are Buying one of the trading card that is advertised on the photo above.
Condition: All cards are Lightly Played - Near Mint condition no card will be lower then Lightly Played. We use stock images for our listings, you should not reference those for centering. When purchasing this card, you will receive a Near Mint copy of that card. When checking the condition of the card, we consider any possible scratches, bends, wear, but not centering or any inconsistencies in the printing of the card that does not affect the physical condition of the card.
Shipping: USPS First Class with tracking shipping will be $4.99 Flat rate and all orders.
How your cards will be protected: Supplies we use are Top-loaders , Card Savers & Shipping Shields with card sleeves the type of protection we use for the cards will depend on the order size.
Our product: All our product is Officially Licensed product. Product is licensed in accordance with trademark and copyright requirements.
Thank You and Happy Gaming!


text: Find cheap flights from East Midlands to Latvia with the Opodo search engine. Whether it's on business, for a relaxing holiday or to visit loved ones, you will find all the best deals on flights from East Midlands with Opodo, featuring cheap flights by all the top low cost and standard airlines. By simply entering your preferences in our speedy search engine, a large selection of options will be returned from which you just need to select the best deal that works for you. We'll do the rest! Alternatively, if you are flexible on dates or an early bird, discover the cheapest day to fly from East Midlands to Latvia to ensure you get the best price. Find exclusive discounts by downloading the Opodo App and subscribing to our newsletter to stay in touch with the best offers on flights, hotels and more. Finally, don't forget to book a hotel or car hire to complete your journey, all of which you will find on Opodo, your one-stop travel shop. Then just sit back and relax and enjoy your holidays!


text:
Professional Sump Pump Installation in Ashaway, RI
Some homeowners find themselves in the unfortunate situation of being in an area that floods on occasion. While this can be a headache, it's possible to alleviate that frustration with sump pump installation for Ashaway, RI homes. This is a cost effective measure that can help you out financially both immediately and through the years. Having a Ashaway sump pump installed can dramatically reduce the amount of damage floodwater can do to your home. The installation can potentially save you money in terms of protecting your home from flooding, and can save you from the physical labor of removing the water yourself. So have sump pump installation in Ashaway, RI performed professionally today. Get in touch with a GoKnow professional at (855) 217-1221 to get a precise idea on what an installation may cost you with a free estimate on sump pump installation in Ashaway, RI.
It's important to note that the only reason a homeowner would purchase a sump pump in Ashaway, RI is to save on money and stress. It a very fiscally sound investment for a house. Water damage restoration and mold remediation are far more expensive than the cost on sump pump installation in Ashaway, RI. As an added bonus, it's a one time installation fee, and then you can sit back and enjoy the savings. In the long run, it's far cheaper to have a Ashaway sump pump put in than to repair the damages that flood water can leave over the years. So call in to have a GoKnow expert quote you on what sump pump installation in Ashaway, RI can cost.
AVC Costs For Sump Pump Installation Companies
($377) ($1,151) ($1,859)What zipcode do you need Sump Pump Installation Companies in?
Start Here, It's Free
What type of service you would like?
Sump Pump Installation in Ashaway FAQ
Which Ashaway Sump Pump is Better?
There are basically two different types of unit when it comes to sump pump installation in Ashaway, RI. The first, pedestal, are generally reserved for smaller jobs and not typically recommended for home use. A submersible sump pump in Ashaway, RI, however, is faster, quieter, and generally more efficient than its counterpart. Not only is it more effective, the water being removed from your home will actually cool the motor of the unit as an added bonus. And while it is slightly more expensive, a submersible is clearly the better option when it comes to sump pump installation in Ashaway, RI.
What Goes into Sump Pump Maintenance for Ashaway, RI Homes?
GoKnow experts can come to your home and analyze your sump pump installation in Ashaway, RI to see if you have any issues. Maintenance consists of checking the GFCI outlet, angle of the pump, debris in the filter, outlet pipes, and the vent hole. If all that checks out, the Ashaway sump pump is good to go. Call (855) 217-1221 to schedule this maintenance after a free at-home consultation and estimate.


text:
Victron Alligator Clamp Connectors with 30amp Fuse for Blue Smart IP65 Chargers
Victron Alligator Clamp Connectors with 30amp Fuse for Blue Smart IP65 Chargers
Victron M8 Eyelets with Battery Indicator and 30amp Fuse for Blue Smart IP65 Chargers
Victron M8 Eyelets with Battery Indicator Panel and 30amp Fuse for Blue Smart IP65 Chargers
Victron Replacement M8 Eyelets with 30amp Fuse for Blue Smart IP65 Chargers
Welcome to our website. If you continue to browse and use this website, you are agreeing to comply with and be bound by the following terms and conditions of use, which together with our privacy policy govern Discount Batteries Now's relationship with you in relation to this website. If you disagree with any part of these terms and conditions, please do not use our website.
The term 'Discount Batteries Now' or 'us' or 'we' refers to the owner of the website whose registered office is Unit 6 / 15 Landy Street, Northgate QLD 4013. Our ABN is 21 165 656 664. The term 'you' refers to the user or viewer of our website.
The use of this website is subject to the following terms of use:
This Privacy Policy sets out our commitment to protecting the privacy of personal information provided to us, or otherwise collected by us, offline or online, including through https://www.discountbatteriesnow.com.au/ (Site). In this Privacy Policy we, us or our means Strategic Imports Pty Ltd T/A Discount Batteries Now, ABN: 21 165 656 664.
The types of personal information we may collect about you include:
We may collect these types of personal information directly from you or from third parties.
We may collect, hold, use and disclose personal information for the following purposes:
We may disclose personal information to:
By providing us with personal information, you consent to the disclosure of your personal information to third parties who reside outside Australia and acknowledge that we are not required to ensure that those third parties comply with Australian privacy laws.
Choice and consent: Please read this Privacy Policy carefully. By providing personal information to us, you consent to us collecting, holding, using and disclosing your personal information in accordance with this Privacy Policy. You do not have to provide personal information to us, however, if you do not, it may affect your use of this Site or the products and/or services offered on or through it.
Information from third parties: If we receive personal information about you from a third party, we will protect it as set out in this Privacy Policy. If you are a third party providing personal information about somebody else, you represent and warrant that you have such person's consent to provide the personal information to us.
Access: You may request details of the personal information that we hold about you. In certain circumstances, as set out in the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), we may refuse to provide you with personal information that we hold about you.
Correction: If you believe that any information we hold about you is inaccurate, out of date, incomplete, irrelevant or misleading, please contact us using the details below. We will take reasonable steps to correct any information found to be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or out of date.
Complaints: If you believe that we have breached the Australian Privacy Principles and wish to make a complaint, please contact us using the details below and provide us with full details of the alleged breach. We will promptly investigate your complaint and respond to you, in writing, setting out the outcome of our investigation and the steps we will take to deal with your complaint.
Restrict: You may choose to restrict the collection or use of your personal information. If you have previously agreed to us using your personal information for direct marketing purposes, you may change your mind at any time by contacting us using the details below.
Unsubscribe: To unsubscribe from our e-mail database or opt-out of communications (including marketing communications), please contact us using the details below or opt-out using the opt-out facilities provided in the communication.
We are committed to ensuring that the personal information we collect is secure. In order to prevent unauthorised access or disclosure, we have put in place suitable physical, electronic and managerial procedures to safeguard and secure the personal information and protect it from misuse, interference, loss and unauthorised access, modification and disclosure.
We cannot guarantee the security of any information that is transmitted to or by us over the Internet. The transmission and exchange of information is carried out at your own risk. Although we take measures to safeguard against unauthorised disclosures of information, we cannot assure you that the personal information we collect will not be disclosed in a manner that is inconsistent with this Privacy Policy.
We may use cookies on our Site from time to time. Cookies are text files placed in your computer's browser to store your preferences. Cookies, by themselves, do not tell us your email address or other personally identifiable information. However, they do allow third parties, such as Google and Facebook, to cause our advertisements to appear on your social media and online media feeds as part of our retargeting campaigns. If and when you choose to provide our Site with personal information, this information may be linked to the data stored in the cookie.
We may use web beacons on our Site from time to time. Web beacons (also known as Clear GIFs) are small pieces of code placed on a web page to monitor the visitor's behaviour and collect data about the visitor's viewing of a web page. For example, web beacons can be used to count the users who visit a web page or to deliver a cookie to the browser of a visitor viewing that page.
Our Site may contain links to other websites. We do not have any control over those websites and we are not responsible for the protection and privacy of any personal information which you provide whilst visiting those websites. Those websites are not governed by this Privacy Policy.
We may, at any time and at our discretion, vary this Privacy Policy by publishing the amended Privacy Policy on our Site. We recommend you check our Site regularly to ensure you are aware of our current Privacy Policy.
For any questions or notices, please contact us at:
Strategic Imports Pty Ltd T/A Discount Batteries Now, ABN: 21 165 656 664
Email: [email protected]
Last update: 11/04/2019


text:
It is nicely written, scientifically accurate though vague, but its narrative is absolutely pointless - it just ends somewhere and I kept looking for the next page.
The article adds more evidence that headlines are in most cases nonsensical and have rarely something to do with the content of the article. I've been told repeatedly headlines are picked by the editors not the writers, and I find this increasingly annoying. The article by Folger talks a bit about Casimir energy and dark energy. Then it features the idea of 'extracting' energy from the vacuum which could destroy the universe in a chain reaction in which our vacuum reverts to an energetically more favorable state: "If some clever engineer were ever to extract energy from the vacuum, it could set off a chain reaction that would spread at the speed of light and destroy the universe." At least that wasn't the headline. Finally there are some paragraphs about the LHC and the Higgs and a rather unmotivated mentioning of extra dimensions and M-theory. How the vacuum is supposed to "illuminate" the Theory of Everything remains remarkably unclear throughout the whole article.
John Baez is quoted in various places and is a voice of reason, esp. with regard to the destruction of the universe. About the possibility that the LHC might find the Higgs and only the Higgs, he says
"Well, it would be exciting, but only in the same sense as if you lose your keys and then you find them again. Someone would certainly win a Nobel Prize for it, but after the initial excitement, particle physicists would become grumpy because it would just mean that what we thought was true is true, and all the things we don't understand we still don't understand, and there is still no new evidence."
Sean Carroll is quoted with "we really have to think deeply about what our theories are."


text:
SafetyLit Journal DetailsWe are unable to provide photocopies of any the articles and reports abstracted in SafetyLit updates. Where possible, links have been provided to the publisher of the material and contact information for the corresponding author is listed. Please consider asking your library to subscribe to the journals from which these abstracts have been gathered. |
Advances in pharmacology (1962)Abbreviation: Adv. Pharmacol. (1962)Published by: Academic Press Publisher Location: New York, NY, USA Journal Website: Unavailable
Publication Date Range: 1962 -- 1968 Number of articles from this journal included in the SafetyLit database:
1 pISSN = 0568-0123
Journal Language(s): English Title continued by: Advances in pharmacology and chemotherapy [ISSN 0065-3144] |


text:
We, as REALTORS®, sometimes forget that not everyone is familiar with the ins and outs of the real estate industry, causing unfamiliar lingo to roll off our tongues. Have you ever wondered what all of that real estate jargon means? We've compiled a list of some of the most-common unfamiliar terms.
Adjustable-Rate Mortgage (ARM)
A type of mortgage on which interest rates are periodically adjusted up or down monthly, semi-annually, or annually. Some ARMs can remain fixed for a period of time before adjusting.
A method of maintaining equalized monthly mortgage payments over the life of a loan, even though the proportion of principal to interest changes over time. In the early part of the loan period, the principal repayment is low, while the interest payment is high. At the end of the loan period, the relationship is reversed.
Annual Percentage Rate (APR)
An APR is the finance charge for a loan, including points and fees, in addition to the stated interest rate.
An appraisal serves to establish a property's market value—the likely sales price it would bring if offered in an open and competitive real estate market.
Assessed Value
The value placed on a property by a municipality with the objective of levying taxes. The assessed value may differ widely from The appraised or market value.
Balloon Payment
A large principal payment due all at once at the end of specified loan terms.
A limit on how much the interest rate can be modified in an adjustable-rate mortgage.
Certificate of Title
A document, signed by a title examiner, stating that a seller has an insurable title to the designated property.
The actual procedure by which the deed to a property is legally transferred from seller to buyer, and documents are recorded.
Closing Costs
Fees associated with the closing of a home sale transaction, above and beyond the agreed-upon price of the property itself.
A fee (usually a percentage of the total transaction) paid to a real estate agent or broker for services performed.
Comparative Market Analysis (CMA)
A survey of the attributes and selling process of comparable homes currently on the market or recently sold; used to help determine an accurate pricing strategy for a seller's property.
A condition in a real estate transaction contract that must be met for the contract to be binding.
A binding legal agreement between two or more parties that details the conditions for the exchange of value (for example: money exchanged for title to property).
A legal document formally conveying ownership of a property from seller to buyer.
Down Payment
The percentage of the purchase price of a property that the buyer must pay in cash and may not borrow from a lender.
Earnest Payment
A a good-faith deposit toward the purchase of real estate. Also called earnest money or simply earnest.
The value of a property actually owned by the homeowner: the purchase price, plus appreciation, plus improvements, less mortgages and liens.
A fund or account held by a third-party custodian until the conditions of a contract are met.
Fixed-Rate Mortgage
The type of mortgage in which interest rates remain the same over the life of the loan.
A recognizable entity (such as kitchen cabinets, backyard decking, or light fixtures) that is permanently attached to a property and belongs to the property when it is sold.
Hazard Insurance
Contracted coverage that will compensate for property damage from specified hazards, such as fire and wind.
The assessed fee for borrowing money, usually expressed as a percentage rate.
A security claim on a property until a debt is satisfied.
Listing Contract
The agreement through which a homeowner engages a real estate company for a specified period of time to sell a property, for which, upon the property's sale, the agent receives a commission.
Market Price
The actual price at which a property is sold.
Market Value
The price of a property that is established by location, current economic conditions, and general market trends.
The temporary, conditional pledge of real estate property to a creditor as security for performance of an obligation or repayment of a debt.
Multiple Listing Service (MLS)
A nationwide system that provides detailed information about properties for sale to its agent members and prospective buyers.
Origination Fee
The application cost(s) for processing a proposed mortgage loan.
The acronym—referring to the sum of principal, interest, taxes, and insurance—forming the basis for monthly mortgage payments.
One percent of a mortgage loan principal, charged in addition to interest and fees.
Prepayment Penalty
The practice by which a clause is included in a loan contract allowing a lender to collect extra money from the homeowner if the loan is prepaid above a certain percentage.
One of the parties to a contract; also, the amount of money borrowed in a transaction, for which interest is charged.
To allocate, distribute, or assess proportionately.
Purchase and Sale Agreement
The contract between a buyer and seller detailing a property purchase and transfer.
All of the financial transactions required to make a contract final and binding.
A formal document that serves as proof of ownership of property.
Title Search
Detailed examination of the entire document history of a property title to determine it is without legal encumbrances.