Bienvenue sur | - Breadcrumb
Looking for:
- Loi adobe presenter 9 free |
Loi adobe presenter 9 free. AdvancED Flash on Devices
Par ailleurs, la similitude avec le mot anglais goggles signifiant « lunettes », rappelle les deux [ O ] de la marque. Si on ne peut pas en attribuer l'origine, Google utilise ce jeu de mots dans un de ses services de recherche photo : Google Goggles [ 36 ].
Ils nomment leur projet BackRub [ 38 ]. Cette installation sommaire a pris place dans la chambre de Larry Page [ 43 ]. David Filo , fondateur de Yahoo!
Le nom de domaine « google. Google Inc. Omid Kordestani quitte Netscape pour rejoindre Google en tant que vice-directeur des ventes.
Google assure alors la gestion de trois millions de recherches par jour. Fin octobre , Google signe un partenariat avec Yahoo!
Le 4 septembre , Google obtient la validation de son brevet concernant PageRank. Fin mars, c'est Google Finance qui sort des cartons de Google. Il s'agit d'un outil permettant de suivre en ligne les cours et les devises [ Gblog 17 ]. Il s'agit de Street View. Ce Google phone est produit par HTC. Mais en octobre , Google annonce la fermeture de plusieurs services pour janvier En , l'entreprise atteint le milliard de visiteurs uniques par mois [ 83 ]. En juin , Google lance un nouveau service d'enregistrement de nom de domaine [ 93 ].
En effet, l'entreprise Google devient une filiale du nouveau groupe Alphabet. Ces filiales sont :. Les Google Glass quittent le laboratoire X pour rejoindre la gamme des produits vendus directement par Google [ ]. En , Google accepte de brider son moteur de recherche pour pouvoir s'implanter en Chine.
Les trois principaux moteurs de recherche dominants en Chine, en sont [ ] :. Le punk est mort, vive le punk. Romy Schneider, la femme moderne. Se baigner, lire, faire la sieste? On nous l'avait bien dit. Ce sont les vedettes d'un tube. Focus en musique sur ces tubes de leur vie. Voir sur madelen. Demandez Miko! Aussi bon que le fruit. Boby Lapointe est mort il y a 50 ans le 29 juin Les Bananarama : "Cruel Summer ".
L'oeil de No authorization is needed, however, to make a communication that falls within one of the exceptions to the marketing definition. See additional guidance on Marketing. Minimum Necessary. A covered entity must make reasonable efforts to use, disclose, and request only the minimum amount of protected health information needed to accomplish the intended purpose of the use, disclosure, or request.
When the minimum necessary standard applies to a use or disclosure, a covered entity may not use, disclose, or request the entire medical record for a particular purpose, unless it can specifically justify the whole record as the amount reasonably needed for the purpose. See additional guidance on Minimum Necessary.
Access and Uses. For internal uses, a covered entity must develop and implement policies and procedures that restrict access and uses of protected health information based on the specific roles of the members of their workforce. These policies and procedures must identify the persons, or classes of persons, in the workforce who need access to protected health information to carry out their duties, the categories of protected health information to which access is needed, and any conditions under which they need the information to do their jobs.
Disclosures and Requests for Disclosures. Covered entities must establish and implement policies and procedures which may be standard protocols for routine, recurring disclosures, or requests for disclosures , that limits the protected health information disclosed to that which is the minimum amount reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose of the disclosure. Individual review of each disclosure is not required. For non-routine, non-recurring disclosures, or requests for disclosures that it makes, covered entities must develop criteria designed to limit disclosures to the information reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose of the disclosure and review each of these requests individually in accordance with the established criteria.
Reasonable Reliance. If another covered entity makes a request for protected health information, a covered entity may rely, if reasonable under the circumstances, on the request as complying with this minimum necessary standard. Privacy Practices Notice. Each covered entity, with certain exceptions, must provide a notice of its privacy practices. The notice must describe the ways in which the covered entity may use and disclose protected health information. The notice must include a point of contact for further information and for making complaints to the covered entity.
Covered entities must act in accordance with their notices. The Rule also contains specific distribution requirements for direct treatment providers, all other health care providers, and health plans. See additional guidance on Notice. Covered entities, whether direct treatment providers or indirect treatment providers such as laboratories or health plans must supply notice to anyone on request.
The covered entities in an organized health care arrangement may use a joint privacy practices notice, as long as each agrees to abide by the notice content with respect to the protected health information created or received in connection with participation in the arrangement.
A health plan must distribute its privacy practices notice to each of its enrollees by its Privacy Rule compliance date. Thereafter, the health plan must give its notice to each new enrollee at enrollment, and send a reminder to every enrollee at least once every three years that the notice is available upon request.
For information included within the right of access, covered entities may deny an individual access in certain specified situations, such as when a health care professional believes access could cause harm to the individual or another.
In such situations, the individual must be given the right to have such denials reviewed by a licensed health care professional for a second opinion. The Rule gives individuals the right to have covered entities amend their protected health information in a designated record set when that information is inaccurate or incomplete. The Rule specifies processes for requesting and responding to a request for amendment. A covered entity must amend protected health information in its designated record set upon receipt of notice to amend from another covered entity.
Disclosure Accounting. Accounting for disclosures to health oversight agencies and law enforcement officials must be temporarily suspended on their written representation that an accounting would likely impede their activities. Restriction Request. A covered entity that does agree must comply with the agreed restrictions, except for purposes of treating the individual in a medical emergency. Confidential Communications Requirements. Health plans and covered health care providers must permit individuals to request an alternative means or location for receiving communications of protected health information by means other than those that the covered entity typically employs.
Similarly, an individual may request that the provider send communications in a closed envelope rather than a post card.
Health plans must accommodate reasonable requests if the individual indicates that the disclosure of all or part of the protected health information could endanger the individual.
Any covered entity may condition compliance with a confidential communication request on the individual specifying an alternative address or method of contact and explaining how any payment will be handled. HHS recognizes that covered entities range from the smallest provider to the largest, multi-state health plan.
Therefore the flexibility and scalability of the Rule are intended to allow covered entities to analyze their own needs and implement solutions appropriate for their own environment. Privacy Policies and Procedures.
A covered entity must develop and implement written privacy policies and procedures that are consistent with the Privacy Rule.
Privacy Personnel. Workforce Training and Management. Workforce members include employees, volunteers, trainees, and may also include other persons whose conduct is under the direct control of the entity whether or not they are paid by the entity. A covered entity must mitigate, to the extent practicable, any harmful effect it learns was caused by use or disclosure of protected health information by its workforce or its business associates in violation of its privacy policies and procedures or the Privacy Rule.
Data Safeguards. A covered entity must maintain reasonable and appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to prevent intentional or unintentional use or disclosure of protected health information in violation of the Privacy Rule and to limit its incidental use and disclosure pursuant to otherwise permitted or required use or disclosure. See additional guidance on Incidental Uses and Disclosures. A covered entity must have procedures for individuals to complain about its compliance with its privacy policies and procedures and the Privacy Rule.
Among other things, the covered entity must identify to whom individuals can submit complaints to at the covered entity and advise that complaints also can be submitted to the Secretary of HHS. Retaliation and Waiver. A covered entity may not retaliate against a person for exercising rights provided by the Privacy Rule, for assisting in an investigation by HHS or another appropriate authority, or for opposing an act or practice that the person believes in good faith violates the Privacy Rule.
Documentation and Record Retention. A covered entity must maintain, until six years after the later of the date of their creation or last effective date, its privacy policies and procedures, its privacy practices notices, disposition of complaints, and other actions, activities, and designations that the Privacy Rule requires to be documented.
The only administrative obligations with which a fully-insured group health plan that has no more than enrollment data and summary health information is required to comply are the 1 ban on retaliatory acts and waiver of individual rights, and 2 documentation requirements with respect to plan documents if such documents are amended to provide for the disclosure of protected health information to the plan sponsor by a health insurance issuer or HMO that services the group health plan.
The Rule contains provisions that address a variety of organizational issues that may affect the operation of the privacy protections. Hybrid Entity. A covered entity that does not make this designation is subject in its entirety to the Privacy Rule.
Affiliated Covered Entity. Legally separate covered entities that are affiliated by common ownership or control may designate themselves including their health care components as a single covered entity for Privacy Rule compliance.
An affiliated covered entity that performs multiple covered functions must operate its different covered functions in compliance with the Privacy Rule provisions applicable to those covered functions.
Organized Health Care Arrangement. A covered entity that performs multiple covered functions must operate its different covered functions in compliance with the Privacy Rule provisions applicable to those covered functions. Group Health Plan disclosures to Plan Sponsors. Personal Representatives. The Privacy Rule permits an exception when a covered entity has a reasonable belief that the personal representative may be abusing or neglecting the individual, or that treating the person as the personal representative could otherwise endanger the individual.
Special Case: Minors. In most cases, parents are the personal representatives for their minor children. Therefore, in most cases, parents can exercise individual rights, such as access to the medical record, on behalf of their minor children.
EUROGRAPHICS Presenter JongHyun Kim Abstract We present - Nagasaki, un survivant raconte : «Les gens sont morts comme des mouches»
Therefore it is expected to have ramifications over public reporting. Nevertheless, the development of a common data dictionary will have little impact on the design of this initiative, in particular its scope and costs. This is because the data dictionary is a longer term initiative, and it aims to describe the reported and disclosed information, whereas this initiative focuses on making the disclosed information more accessible and more easily readable by machines.
The two initiatives are complementary as, the development of a common dictionary has the potential to aid the interpretation and comparability of disclosed information and hence facilitate its use. Fragmentation as regards the information flows on the European markets and financial service s drives the costs up for discovering, accessing and processing the information users need.
This is also a det e rr ent to research, and cross border analysis About half of stakeholders consulted find that costs for retrieving and processing information are generally high.
Retail investors and civil society tend to find this source quite costly or even unaffordable. The problems identified drive the significant search and processing costs experienced by stakeholders to get information and compare it.
The situation is also a hindrance for users to compare 38 information , either directly or indirectly. About half of respondents to our consultation find that costs for retrieving and processing information are high. C osts to acquire data and bring it in a stage where it can be digitally used generally require human intervention: scanning and recognition software, rekeying, etc. Such costs are comprised mainly of staff costs, licensing or access fees, software, translations.
As a result, on average respondents find that costs for retrieving and processing information that is mandatorily published in the area of financial services and capital markets are high, either with licenses acquired from data vendors or without such licenses. This is particularly acute as regards sustainability-related data which is currently more difficult and costly to obtain than standardised financial information publicly disclosed by listed entities.
A large insurance company estimated its own costs reached millions of euros. Another consequence is that the increasing demand for ESG information by market participants is not met. A vast majority of respondents to the ESAP targeted consultation 39 underlined their difficulties to easily access and digitally use ESG and other types of information published by entities.
The European Green Deal aims to place sustainable finance at the heart of the financial system. Introduction of new disclosure obligations, such as those related to EU Taxonomy, SFDR and recently proposed CSRD, will on one hand increase transparency on sustainability impacts and risks, but also further increase demand for access to reliable sustainability, related data.
Continued uneasy access to sustainability-related data and barriers to their digital use hinder the ability of investors to reflect sustainability-related risks and impacts in their decisions and hence to effectively contribute to the Green Deal via sustainable investments.
This reduces as well the ability of investors, governments and civil society to hold companies accountable for negative environmental, social and human rights impacts, resulting in lower incentive for companies to become more sustainable and resilient. Different types of users report that they experience similar problems, however on a different scale. Users are varied e.
As a result, the impacts of the problems are of different scale and nature for different user types.
One aspect that illustrates this is the different scale and frequency of data that stakeholders need to access: while professional investors seek frequent access to large volumes of information, retail investors typically find smaller volumes of information and occasional access sufficient.
National and EU public bodies have shared their interest in accessing information notably for statistical, supervisory or other public-interest purposes. Correspondingly, the magnitude of search costs or impairments to decision making due to missing or difficult to use data that different users bear also differs. Data aggregators interviewed or consulted, despite being in the business of disseminating information, report similarly that these issues are an annoyance for them in harvesting raw data for their business, and a driver for loss of productivity.
During the workshop with users Annex 4 , there was a strong message that access to information is not optimal. The prevailing fragmentation in access to data is one of the long-standing barriers to the integration of financial markets across the EU By making it difficult and costly for investors to find, analyse and ultimately compare relevant information including for retail investors and financial advisors to compare financial product information , this situation also presents a barrier to optimal allocation of capital.
As such, this problem undermines the functioning of the internal market. For instance, it has been noted that it makes SME research more difficult As a result, their attractiveness to investors is not optimal, especially from a cross border perspective Home bias is in the EU a natural barrier to integration for cultural, historical and linguistic reasons. In finance, the fragmented European market affects in particular SMEs, which can in turn hamper their ability to expand beyond their own borders Due to home bias , SMEs and non-listed entities often have to rely on national markets.
As seen during the examination of barriers to the single market 49 , risk capital continues to be scarce for high-growth SMEs. As echoed by business organisations, the difficulty in accessing funding affects both domestic and non-domestic businesses alike.
However, it would affect disproportionately those businesses that are trying to expand in the markets with limited access to capital, compared to already established businesses. In the wake of the covid crisis, the prospects for SME finance have become bleaker still. The Netherlands stands out negatively in the euro area, with SME finance having shrunk as a percentage of GDP since the financial crisis. Fragmentation of capital markets is detrimental to a smooth functioning of the market and drives higher cost of capital, especially for listed companies which in turn makes becoming or staying listed less attractive The situation is also a hindrance to developing new digital services, such as services around the digital comparison of EU wide complete sets of data for a given sector, which is key for investment decisions.
Companies in the rating business ESG or creditworthiness report that the lack of digitalisation and easy access are barriers to their ability to develop complete, reliable and forward looking service offers. During consultation, some stakeholders contended that the emergence of new technologies such as artificial intelligence AI and machine learning ML combined for instance with Optical Character Recognition OCR could in the future improve the digital use of documents that contain non-structured data in any IT format, with the potential of solving, at least partly, the problem.
I t is difficult to predict whether such emerging technologies would enable any user to obtain reliable results at a reasonable cost in the foreseeable future , absent any intervention T here are nevertheless reasons to believe that this hypothetical scenario will not solve the problem. Building solutions based on artificial intelligence or machine learning would require that vast amounts of available data are readily available, accessible and usable.
For this purpose, the Commission aims precisely to build common data spaces, recognising that easier access and usability are a premise to the emergence of such new technologies In addition, the problems noted on harmonization in several dimension like document metadata, data structuring and semantic interoperability would impinge negatively on the quality of the output information that would be based on a fully automated interpretation of data.
Addressing t hese inefficiencies from the market angle would require huge investment s in not only technologies 54 but also human resources and gathering of data. As a result the total cost of investment would be high 55 , raising doubts whether this would result economically more efficient in the medium term than services offered by data aggregators.
Given the persistence of the problem and absent new impetus, it is unlikely that EU markets and financial services would start integrating naturally , in a coordinated move , overcoming , for instance , the home bias observed on information flows A number of ongoing initiatives at regulatory level may nevertheless modify slightly the landscape. Company Law mandates that by August , all documents and information submitted as part of the formation of a company, the registration of a branch, or a filing by a company or a branch, is stored by the registers in a machine-readable and searchable format or as structured data The impact of this initiative would remain limited for the objectives of ESAP, given the very limited overlap of information covered between Company law and this initiative , whilst other problems noted are not addressed.
An implementing Regulation on High Value Datasets will ensure an open data approach at national level as regards information delivered by certain national bodies where public offering access to on companies and company ownership, that is an estimated three reporting obligations within the scope of this intervention.
This policy builds on national systems, hence access would remain scattered on this basis. The ESEF i s an important stepping stone — not yet fully implemented in the markets — that will d eliver on the objective of increased digital use of information, however for a limited number of reporting obligations and market participants.
As regards ESG information , the European Commission adopted on 21 April a legal proposal as regards corporate sustainable reporting 59 which will cater for the need of structured and machine readable corporate sustainability reporting 60 , addressing one of the key concerns on ESG information raised during consultations.
This Commission proposal for sustainability reporting concerns 37 listed regardless of size and large non-listed entities publishing corporate sustainability reports If adopted by the Union, this would represent undeniable progress but would not solve the problem globally.
Furthermore, the EEAP does not address problems such as terms of use, quality, integrity of information, etc. For these reasons, the EEAP cannot solve the problem in an extensive way. The European Parliament has long been stress ing the need for deepening European capital markets in order to ensure access to financing from sources other than banks and to address barriers to cross border investments Adding to this, the shift towards sustainable investment and digital finance drive this initiative where information has a key role to play in the wider dimension of financial services area.
Data should be more easily accessible and ready for digital use for investors, including on a cross border basis.
An EU intervention to reduce fragmentation, by ways of e. The objectives of this initiative cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States individually. The Member States have currently certain leeway for the design of rules on mechanisms and formats of corporate reporting obligations set out by the EU legislation, with heavy reliance on national systems.
The resulting geographical and thematic fragmentation of disclosure mechanisms and formats is pervasive in the Union and increases costs for users of corporate information.
Further individual actions by Member States would not reduce this fragmentation unless they move in the same direction to build a single access point and address a number of barriers, which is unlikely without a coordinated approach.
Enabling better access to information at the EU level, considering the scale and the effects of such a project, is an objective that can be better achieved at Union level.
In addition, the design of suitable formats, terms of use, language specifications, etc. There is widespread support for such initiative from governments, regulators, regional or national market participants, users, civil society, etc. Therefore, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, this initiative should not go beyond what is necessary in order to develop and operate the ESAP.
This intervention will not add to, or modify existing reporting obligations in terms of content, as this is the prerogative of sectoral legislation. In order to minimise the burden on entities and national authorities, it would be appropriate for the ESAP to build as much as possible on the existing data reporting channels and infrastructure.
Nevertheless, the EU intervention will add value by streamlining in an efficient way the delivery of usable information to users on a cross border basis which would not be possible through different national access points. In response to the problems identified, the overall objective of the European Single Access Point is to contribute to integrating the European capital markets and the financial services including a cross border s within the Union and to foster a more efficient allocation of capital across the EU.
In addition, the intervention supports better access to sustainability-related data. O ther types of users may see an interest in obtaining the information, f or instance civil society , p ublic authorities, law-makers or economists and this also contributes to an efficient functioning of the internal market. Barriers to access and use of information published by entities in the financial services and capital markets area will therefore have to be examined, as well as the numerous existing channels and lack of interconnection of existing national or EU repositories.
The intervention would not create any new reporting obligation in terms of content, but build on existing requirements. It would address information that is relevant in the financial services, capital markets and sustainable finance areas, pursuant to the overall EU strategy for data in these areas.
Two major specific objectives are identified in relation to public reporting obligations would contribute to the general objective set out above, as seen in Table 1. Reporting requirements with different channels as regards information to be published. Data repositories channelling a small portion of information are not interconnected. Increasing the flows i. Language and other barriers insufficiently addressed. Machine readable formats specified for only for a few datasets.
No prevailing market standard for disclosure format s. Increasing digital use and re-use of data. The first specific objective is to enable a seamless and integrated access to data published by entities subject to disclosure obligations in the area of financial services and capital markets, including sustainability related data, whilst avoiding disproportionate administrative costs for entities, in order to increase the circulation of information within the Union.
Increasing the circulation of information published in relation to financial services is necessary both within Member States and cross-border to support, at least in part, the general objective s of integration.
The intervention should remove barriers to access, and improve discovery. This should be addressed keeping in mind the need to keep costs to a minimum 68 and alleviate other additional constraints, such as multiple filings The intervention should have regard to ongoing actions facilitating access to data at national level 70 and at EU level The second specific objective is to increase the digital use and re-use of data, addressing barriers or hurdles currently in place.
From the digital use angle, the ESAP should seek to standardise the way in which information is drawn up in order to make it easier digitally use, analyse and possibly compare , thus reducing processing costs for users. The intervention should remov e barriers such as unnecessary restrictions to re-use , linguistic barriers , etc.
This should be consistent with actions which will facilitate use of data at national level and at EU level A minimum viable product should be implemented by end The intervention should also ensure that these measures enable the EU framework to remain dynamic in order to be able to accommodate future technological progress and remain evolutionary Considering how the problem will evolve, the main characteristics of the baseline scenario i.
As part of the baseline, other existing pan EU interconnection systems or databases are considered. Business registers under EU law 76 are in charge of the disclosure of limited liability company information to ensure publicity of such information towards third parties. As regards information in the financial services area, OAMs and NCA collect only a small portion of the available information.
Without a proper EU dissemination system for information stored by OAMs and NCA, the information they collect remains not easily available to end users.
This is also valid for companies willing to disclose voluntari ly information relevant for financial services There are however a number of factors that prevent retaining the BRIS in the baseline. The main reasons are this initiative and BRIS have different intended users, consuming different information in a different way. In addition, there are different collection bodies with limited overlap on the data collected.
In particular:. By contrast, BRIS covers the company information to be disclosed under EU Company Law to the general public such as citizens, professionals and companies in order to provide legal certainty of such information.
Th e vast majority of information otherwise offered in the BRIS, based on the Company Law Directive, would have no immediate interest to investors for the purpose of this initiative.
While a maximum of 12 months is allowed by the EU law for filing financial statements with a business register, the delay is reduced to 4 month for an issuer i. This overlap concerns currently up to around 12 companies depending on the type of document, and in the future possibly up to 49 companies, should the Commission proposal of 21 April for a corporate sustainability reporting Directive be endorsed by the co-legislators.
Therefore, considering the above, BRIS is not relevant in the baseline scenario. And this is only for one reporting obligation. Therefore despite significant progress over the last years, the widespread digital use of information would remain hampered by the situation. As a result, in the baseline scenario, discovery and processing costs would remain significant for users. Reduced flow and digital use of information represent a barrier to integrated financial services and capital markets at the Union level, leading to losses of funding or investment opportunities, sub-optimal allocation and higher costs of capital, hampering the full potential of the internal market in the financial sector.
The main message during consultation is the emerging need for access to ESG information. This information is increasingly demanded, notably by investors, fund managers, intermediates, advisors, as well as civil society and public authorities due to recent regulatory evolutions in the Union 79 , but also by the public at large for various purposes out of the general fight against climate change.
This bottleneck may become a significant barrier to achieving the sustainable finance angle of the Green Deal. From the market side, extant registers other than data aggregators are not satisfactory solutions as none can fully solve all the problems identified Annex One can expect that technologies relevant to this problem will continue to emerge but there is no clear indication that they would resolve a substantial part of the problem in a timely manner.
The policy options focus on how to establish a single access point in order to achieve the specific policy objectives outlined in section 4, rather than considering a single access point as one possibility among others to tackle the problems. T his is because a vast majority could support an EU single access point as a wa y of improving access , even though some recognised that there could be other avenues to improve access on the basis of numerous sources of information or other ways — however providing no clear alternative efficient direction.
There is a strong support 80 among all stakeholders for a single access point at the EU level as the best solution to address the problems. Asked during the public consultation on the Renewed sustainable finance strategy April-July if EU policy action is needed to help maximise the potential of digital tools for integrating sustainability into the financial sector, most respondents indicated that digital tools have a role to play to ensure access ible, reliable data e.
Only some suggested other ways such as promote innovation, create new instruments e. T here was a strong support during workshops Annex 4 for a single access point confirmed by survey on the spot, including for users.
A few users believed that having access to the information in a centralized manner was not key — however not providing a clear description what other solutions might consist of. The European economy has historically suffered from a lack of divers ified sources of funding for companies, hence the need to tackle the barriers to the flow of capital, to remove regulatory and non-regulatory barriers to the free movement of capital across borders.
Hence, members have stressed that the EU suffered from a market competition disadvantage and insufficient EU market-based financing compared to e. To tackle these issues, members of the HLF saw merit in mirroring in th e EU solutions in place in comparable markets of third countries , that is a single access point to information however with a broader scope to also capture sustainability-related and other information.
A single access point is consistent with the European strategy for data and on digital finance which both herald common data spaces in the financial sector for enhanced access to data and data sharing.
This section presents the different policy options for the following five main dimensions that are crucial to ensure relevant objectives are met: 1 scope of the information accessible via ESAP; 2 format of the information accessible via ESAP; 3 collection of the information accessible via ESAP and interconnection of existing collection points; 4 open data, and 5 governance.
These are considered to be the core aspects in terms of addressing the identified problems and they are also the principal determinants of costs. An overview of which policy options can serve the objectives is provided in Table 2. Table 3 provides a summary of the options presented in this section. Key dimensions. Scope of the information. Collection of the information and interconnection of existing.
Increased digital use and re-use of information. Core information: Only entity-related info mandatorily published by listed entities.
No product-related nor other mandatory info. No voluntary info accepted. Option 2. No other mandatory info. Certain voluntary info accepted. Option 3. All info published by entities in the scope of EU financial markets legislation to be included progressively.
All relevant voluntary info accepted. Certain info to be in an open and widely used data extractable format see annex Entities submit the information to a collection point that is interconnected with the ESAP at the same time as they make the information public.
Option 1. This section presents the policy options for the information that would be accessible via ESAP. The scope and related options is driven by the objectives. This confines the scope to be examined to information that is relevant for use in the financial services and capital markets area , as well as in relation to sustainability.
On the basis of a wide encompassing mapping of EU law, the Commission services identified the Directives and Regulations potentially serving this purpose During the mapping exercise it appeared that certain market participants had reporting obligations that confine to being a register, in relation to transaction based information, and not always for the purpose of making that information primarily available to the public.
By nature, this information does not respond to the objectives of this initiative. For instance, some requirements may imply an obligation for timely disclosure 15 minutes after the event , others require specific access means with the ability to address massive amounts of data with high frequency. For that matter, these transaction-related reporting obligations should remain out of the scope of the ESAP. Nevertheless, any low frequency entity-related or product-related reporting obligations impinging on these bodies, such as governance reports, would represent relevant information for the ESAP.
Some reporting obligations may pertain to several categories. Third countries entities whose securities are traded on an EU regulated market will have to mandatorily make available via the ESAP any information required by EU law.
No voluntary information. In this option focusing on essential core information demanded by investors , t he ESAP would provide access only on entity-related information financial and sustainability-related that has to be published under EU law by issuers with securities admitted to trading on the EU regulated markets i.
No other mandatory information , such as financial and sustainability information by large non-listed entities , would be accessible via the ESAP. Certain voluntary information. In addition to the information disclosed under Option 1, t he ESAP would provide access to key entity-related information 95 required under the EU law the access to which is overall highly supported by users i.
Adding 21 more information that is related to both entity and product the option would address altogether around 79 reporting obligations. All relevant voluntary information. The ESAP would progressively 97 provide access to all entity , product and other information that has to be published by any entity under the EU financial markets legislation see the list of relevant EU legal acts in Annex 9 , representing around reporting obligations This section presents the policy options for the format of the information accessible via ESAP.
Formats such as PDF can be considered as data extractable if the file contains the characters, i. Making information machine readable on a systematic basis may be envisaged as an option. In such a setting, the information published by entities would have to be mandatorily drawn-up and submitted in one or a few predetermined specific single machine-readable format s in order to be accepted by the ESAP. This option is however discarded at an early stage for the following reasons:.
I Machine readability depends to a great extent on the preliminary existence of structured data on the basis of, for instance , layouts, taxonom ies , template s , form s associated with certain information , and a format.
If the template or taxonomies are missing the information will not be truly machine readable even if a machine readable format is adopted , because the machine will not recognise the nature of information it is dealing with. D ata structuring is therefore a prerogative of the sectoral legislation , having to d o with its inherent objectives, which is beyond the objectives of the ESAP initiative addressing the accessibility and digital use of information.
III Based on our consultation activities, most stakeholders except retail investors and data aggregators could cope with different formats for different types of information They did not necessarily support a single format and could live with different formats.
In fact, with tools such as viewers, readers, software etc. IV As machine readable formats come with their own characteristics, co nstraints and benefits, a tailor- made approach is necessary to assess which format, if any, is the most appropriate for a given information depending on the content, perceived importance or needs of the users for each reported information, as well as costs and benefits.
An analysis has to be conducted at the level of each sectoral legislation rather than on a central basis to ensure proportional approach. Nevertheless, aiming for machine readability is key to reach the objective of increased digital use and re-use of data consultation. Hence as an overarching principle for all the options examined below, it is considered that the intervention will confer powers on the Commission to adopt machine readable formats by ways of level 2 measures secondary law such as Commission Decision in each relevant sectoral legislation concerned.
This would allow to examine the case for machine readability on a wide scale, yet possibly on a case by case basis, not pre-empting any solution or having any impacts at this stage. The following options were identified as regards formats:. This would effectively mean that most information available through ESAP would not be data extractable or machine readable. The ESAP would specify a common minimum set of metadata for all the information to be disclosed including a legal entity iden t ifier.
In addition, the Commission would be provided with delegated powers to define via delegated acts specific metadata for each type of document where the existing required format is not machine-readable. The Commission would have delegated powers to specify a machine readable format. The ESAP would accept only documents prepared in a n open and widely used data extracta ble format The ESAP would specify a common minimum set of metadata for all the information to be disclosed including a l egal e ntity i dentifier.
In the absence of a collection point specified under EU law , the entities would submit the information including voluntary information directly to the OAMs. In the absence of a collection point specified under EU law, the entities would submit the information including voluntary information directly to a collection point interconnected with the ESAP at the same time as they make such information public. Entities submit the information including voluntary information only to the OAMs.
The ESAP will contain information that is of high value for users in the financial services and capital markets area. Many end users will re-use information in a way or another, for personal consumption or commercial purposes. Determining rights on data use and re-use is necessary to ensure uniform application and user rights. This is key to enable legally sound use and re-use on a pan-Union basis.
The ESAP should aim to ensure fair, proportionate and non-discriminatory conditions for the re-use of such information. The terms of re-use should also have regards to the public interest, hence allow for commercial re-use.
Conditions for re-use laid down in the Open Data Directive could be used as a benchmark. In particular, there should be no obstacle to re-use for commercial purposes including value added services, new products, or use to package products. In line with the Open Data Directive, information shall be available free of charge in principle there should be no access fees , the re-use of such information shall be free of charge and not limited by database rights.
According to anecdotal evidence, p roviding data free of charge could increase the overall number of users accessing the ESAP by a factor of , therefore increasing visibility of the entities whose information is accessible. The Open Data Directive develops minimum harmonisation of national rules and practices on the re-use of public sector documents and data.
These may include restrictions stemming from copyright on the content or database sui generis rights. Certain terms of use require a specific agreement between the body and the end user Annex Certain information, such as Annual financial reports of issuers of securities, is in the scope of the implementing act about High Value Datasets of the Open Data Directive. Against this backdrop, three options are envisaged as regards open data:.
Collection points must apply the same single open licence on the data that they make available on the ESAP. Each collection point determines the license applying to the data within the terms equivalent to those of a reference licence determined at EU level e. M : On marching cubes. SHU R. Feature-sensitive subdivision and isosurface reconstruction.
Until all anchor points are triangulated. We call this method cubical marching squares. Constructing an adaptive signed octree. Generating segments for each leaf face. Extracing surfaces for each cell in the signed octree. The second part of the book covers Flash Lite and how to take advantage newer features supported in Flash Lite 3. Then, the book covers AIR applications for multiple screens and includes topics such as:.
The last part of the book covers creating Flex applications running Flash 9 and 10 in mobile device browsers and includes topics such as:. Experienced Flash and ActionScript programmers who want to extend their skills to mobile platforms should find this book a great help in developing in this exciting and expanding marketplace.
Publisher : Apress Berkeley, CA. Softcover ISBN : Edition Number : 1. Topics : Web Development , Computer Graphics. Skip to main content. Search SpringerLink Search. Elad Elrom View author publications. View author publications.
Comments
Post a Comment