Order clause

Consider extending SQL with new functions. This might be considered the fundamental suggestion in this book. There are many useful functions built into SQL, but sometimes a simple extension function can allow an SQL operation to run completely on the database server without having to pass data to the client. For example, to sort selected rows by and value in a column requires only simple SQL. If the data needed to sort the rows is not part of data being selected, consider writing a function that will provide the value to be sorted. For example, if it were necessary to sort by the number of atoms in a molecule, a natoms (smiles) function could be used in the order clause of SQL. 

In the framework of the new approach third parties have a particular responsibility. Their task has become more difficult especially in cases where products are manufactured directly to the essential requirements. In that case competent interpretation and judgement needs to be applied in order to evaluate whether the required safety level is achieved or not. Not only safeguard clauses and their economic consequences should be avoided but also possible distortion of the market. An exchange of experience between bodies which are notified for a given directive is therefore normally organised with a view to ensuring its coherent application and to avoid such negative consequences. 

These rules are executed in order until a set of rules is satisfied. If all the rules fail then the last default type OS is assigned. The tests on neighboring lines are AND ed together and sets of tests (clauses) separated by blank lines are OR ed. 

The note in clause 4.19.1 points out that any after-sales product servicing provided under the OEM contract or order would constitute servicing. 

Note that clause 4.1.4 requires goals to cover short term (1 to 2 years) and long term (3 years or more). The standard implies that in order to establish your goals you are required to ... 

The note attached to clause 4.1.1.3 needs to be interpreted carefully otherwise you will have every individual setting up systems to monitor their relationship with the people to whom they provide product or information. Everyone needs to be aware of their relationships with others but formal systems are only necessary between organizations. If your organization receives formal orders from other parts of the same company then there may be benefit in treating this as a customer-supplier relationship and monitoring customer satisfaction. 

There is no requirement for you to state the policies to meet each clause of the standard but many organizations in fact do just this. ISO 9001 requires the manual to cover the requirements of the standard and ISO 10013 gives an example of how this may be done. ISO 10013, however, points you in the direction of producing a quality manual which is structured in the sequence of the key elements of the standard rather than the operations of your business. This is fine for third party auditors but not for your staff, who will probably want to know your policy on some aspect of your operations in order to make a certain decision. This is where you need operational quality policies organized around the operations of the business - such an approach is deemed acceptable in ISO 10013. 

The table below identifies these procedures indicating the clause numbers, with the denoting those which are applicable only when the requirement applies. In Appendix B are a further 144 topics which your procedures need to address in order to demonstrate that you have documented your quality system. 

Although ISO 8402 defines quality as the totality of characteristics of an entity that bears on its ability to satisfy a stated or implied need, ISO 9001 does not require the required characteristics to be specified. Note 2 of clause 4.3.4 defines a contract and accepted order as agreed requirements but not specified requirements as used elsewhere in the standard. It would have made for less ambiguity if the term customer requirements had been used throughout and then there would be no doubt as to what requirements and to whose requirements these clauses refer. 

You could be forgiven for restricting your quality system to the products or services you supply because all the requirements in the standard except clause 4.3 focus on an end product or service conforming to specified requirements. Contract or order requirements will go beyond end product or service requirements. They will address delivery, quantity, warranty, payment, and other legal obligations. With every product one provides a service for instance one may provide delivery to destination, invoices for payment. 

There is a slight conflict in this clause as it requires that before acceptance of an order, you need to ensure that any differences between your tender and the accepted order requirements are resolved. Clearly if you have not accepted the order you don t need any accepted order requirement. But this small ambiguity doesn t detract from the essence of the requirement. 

The evaluation process, which starts with the request to purchase and ends with the placement of the order or contract. This is covered by clause 4.6.2 of ISO/TS 16949. 

The surveillance process, which starts with placement of order or contract and ends upon delivery of supplies. This is covered by clauses 4.6.2 and 4.6.4 of ISO/TS 16949. 

The quality plan would be a logical place for such controls to be defined but clause 4.2.3 does not specifically refer to subcontractor controls. Any intention that they be defined in the quality plan is hidden in 4.2.3.1(b) where it requires you to give timely consideration to the identification and acquisition of any controls etc. Some companies produce a Quality Assurance Requirement Specification to supplement ISO 9001 and also produce a Subcontractor Surveillance Plan. In most other cases the controls may be defined on the reverse side of the purchase order as standard conditions coded and selected for individual purchases. 

A situation where staff operate under self control is for telephone orders where there is little documentary evidence that a transaction has taken place. There may be an entry on a computer database showing that an order has been placed with a particular supplier. So how would you verify compliance with the requirements of this clause in such circumstances ... 

An organization needs to provide safeguards for its people in order to comply with clause 4.1.7 on Impact on Society. 

The requirements for internal audits apply to audits of the quality system, including the policies, practices, products, and services to which the quality system relates. They are not limited to audits of procedures. In order to determine whether the quality system is effective in maintaining control, you need to check that the resultant products and services meet the specified requirements and that prescribed quality objectives are being achieved. If the products and services are not meeting the specified requirements, or the prescribed objectives are not being achieved, something is clearly amiss with the quality system. The requirements do not apply to audits of suppliers or subcontractors as they are covered in clause 4.6 of the standard. 

This section details the different aspects of the representation we have adopted to describe the problem solutions and the new control knowledge generated by the learning mechanism. Throughout the section we will continue to use the flowshop scheduling problem as an illustration. The section starts by discussing the motives for selecting the horn clause form of first-order predicate calculus, and then proceeds to show how the representation supports both the synthesis of problem solutions and their analysis. The section concludes with a description of how the sufficient... 

It is beyond the scope of this chapter to explain the syntax and semantics of first-order predicate logic, and the reader is referred to Lloyd s text (1987) for a general introduction. However, it is useful to provide some details on the horn clause form. 

Theoretically it has been shown (Thayse, 1988) that the DDP formalism is closely related to a simpler form of horn clause logic, i.e., the propositional calculus. This would suggest that we could use the horn clause form to express some of the types of knowledge we are required to manipulate in combinatorial optimization problems. The explicit inclusion of state information into the representation, necessitates the shift from the simpler propositional form, to the first-order form, since we wish to parsimoniously represent properties that can be true, or take different values, in different states. By limiting the form to horn clauses, we are striving to retain the maximum simplicity of representation, whilst admitting the necessary expressive power. 

First-order predicate calculus admits proof techniques that can be shown to be sound and complete (Lloyd, 1987). The soundness of the proof technique is important because it ensures that our methodology will not deduce results that are invalid. We are less concerned with completeness, because in most cases, although the proof technique will be complete, the theory of dominance or equivalence we have available will be incomplete for most problems. Restricting the first-order logic to be of horn clause form, enables the employment of SLD resolution, a simpler... 

First-order horn clause logic is the representation that has been adopted by workers in the field of explanation-based learning (Minton et al., 1990). Hence, using this representation allows us take advantage of the results and algorithms developed in that field to carry out the machine learning task. 

Owing to its excellent thermal and mechanical stability and its rich chemistry, alumina is the most widely used support in catalysis. Although aluminium oxide exists in various structures, only three phases are of interest, namely the nonporous, crys-tallographically ordered a-Al203, and the porous amorphous t]- and y-Al203. The latter is also used as a catalyst by itself, for example in the production of elemental sulfur from H2S (the Claus process), the alkylation of phenol or the dehydration of formic acid. 

In an earlier example, we used only one effect clause. Here, we have split the cause from the effect. First, we ve invented an effect name depletion (p) as a placeholder name for any action (no matter where defined) that causes stocks of p to be reduced An invariant effect clause tells which (unknown) actions are considered to have the depletion effect. Second, we have defined a postcondition for depletion in the usual way for an effect This says that we require to perform the make order action. 

Another new provision in Section 271 provides that a patented invention, if substantially completed within the United States and then finally completed elsewhere, cannot avoid infringement of the U.S. patent. This is a useful clause because a recent U.S. court decision had held that all aspects of a patented invention must be practiced within the United States in order to infringe the U.S. patent. It now remains for the courts to decide what is meant by substantially completed. ... 

---