text:
The United Football League (UFL) was a professional American football minor league based in the United States that began play in October 2009 and played four seasons, the final one being cut short in October 2012. The small league, which never had more than five teams playing at one time, played most of its games in markets where the National Football League (NFL) had no current presence. Unlike most alternative professional football leagues since the 1980s, the UFL played all of its games in the traditional fall season, competing directly with the NFL, college football, and high school football.

The UFL occupied the second tier of professional football in the United States, behind the National Football League. The UFL primarily consisted of players who had previously played for an NFL team. Although the league had no connection with the NFL, and had never intended to foster any such connection, some speculated that it could have become a minor or "developmental" league for the NFL, including the UFL's own commissioner.

Early news reports had speculated that based on the UFL's initial plan the league would become a "competitor" to the NFL. The UFL seemed poised to capitalize on fan disgust with the NFL should the established league lock out its players prior to the 2011−12 season. The thought was that the NFL would fail to reach an agreement with the NFL players' union after the end of their collective bargaining agreement. This would have led to the 2011−12 NFL season being delayed or cancelled, leaving the UFL the only pro football available.  The NFL did lock out their players, but the situation was resolved in July 2011, before the start of the NFL season.  This negated any benefits the UFL might have hoped to reap from the labor dispute.

The league was beset by frequent operational interruptions, stemming from systemic financial shortfalls, especially from summer 2011 onward. The United Football League announced on October 20, 2012, that it was ceasing operations immediately, after four weeks of play. The official line from the league was that they intended to resume operations and complete the unfinished 2012 schedule at an unspecified time in spring 2013, then revert to a fall schedule in fall 2013 without a full off-season. This announcement, however, was met with widespread skepticism from both within and outside the league, skepticism that was proven to be warranted as the league never returned.

Over the course of the league's history, the Las Vegas Locomotives were the most successful team, winning two of the three championships, appearing in (but losing) the third, and having a perfect record for the season at the time of the cessation of operations.

History

Development and first season (2007–2009)

The United Football League was founded by Bill Hambrecht and Tim Armstrong.
The UFL initially had plans to start with eight teams with $12–20 million rosters playing in targeted sites in the fall of 2008. T. Boone Pickens and Mark Cuban had originally been in discussion with the league as potential owners, but both backed out prior to the 2009 season. On February 9, 2009, it was announced that Paul Pelosi, husband of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, was one of four investors who had stepped forward to invest $10,000,000, plus a personal commitment to cover opening-season losses up to another $10,000,000 for a one-half interest in four franchises to play in the league's 2009 inaugural season. The league was under the overall direction of William Hambrecht, a former Wall Street figure who had sold his old firm, Hambrecht & Quist, to what was then Chase Manhattan Bank for US$1.35 billion in 1999.

Michael Huyghue, a former executive with the Jacksonville Jaguars and the head of a sports agency service, was the league's first and only commissioner.

The league had identified 21 cities that they deemed possessed strong economic bases, passionate football tradition, and a high number of average TV viewing households as potential team locations. Target markets in the US included: Austin, Birmingham, Columbus, Hartford, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Louisville, Memphis, Milwaukee, New York City, Oklahoma City, Orlando, Portland, Raleigh-Durham, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, and San Jose; as well as international markets in London, Mexico City and Monterrey.

With their planned launch date arriving soon and only a couple owners in hand, the UFL decided to go ahead and do a "soft launch" in 2009, similar to the one used by the Arena Football League in its inaugural season in 1987, rather than delaying play another year. The soft launch called for opening the league with fewer teams than planned and playing an abbreviated schedule. They hoped a functioning league would yield the UFL a superior position for attracting potential owners over competing leagues still under development (like the New USFL, which at the time was trumpeting a spring 2010 launch).

The markets chosen for the premiere season were New York City (Sentinels), Las Vegas (Locomotives), Orlando (Florida Tuskers), and the San Francisco Bay Area (California Redwoods).  The league's short schedule made the kind of expensive promotional efforts often employed with a new league cost prohibitive. Additionally, the league had a full schedule of three home games in the same stadium in only one of their selected cities, Las Vegas.

During the week of August 10, 2009, the four team names and their uniform jerseys were revealed. Each of the uniforms (and the team logos and helmets that were unveiled on October 2) incorporated the UFL's signature color scheme into their designs, including silver (primary color for the Las Vegas Locomotives), blue (Florida Tuskers), black (New York Sentinels), and lime green and white (California Redwoods). Each of the team jerseys had the same design template, complete with a horizontal arc across the top front that resembles the arc on the UFL's logo.

One of the Redwoods' games was moved to San Jose; the other two were played in San Francisco (the move to San Jose was a short-notice move due to poor attendance in San Francisco; however, the San Jose game ended up being even more poorly attended). The league was unable to secure a fiscally reasonable deal for a stadium within New York City, forcing the league to have the Sentinels play one home game each in Hartford, Connecticut; on the campus of Hofstra University in Long Island, and in New Jersey. In addition, one of the Tuskers' games was played at Tropicana Field in St. Petersburg, Florida, in part because the Tuskers shared ownership that year with the Tampa Bay Rays; this was not reprised in 2010.

The Florida Tuskers finished 2009 with a 6–0 record. The Las Vegas Locomotives were next at 4–2, the California Redwoods were 2–4, and the Sentinels were last at 0–6. The Locomotives played the Tuskers in the 2009 UFL Championship Game; the Locomotives won the title on a field goal in overtime.

Expansion (2010)

Before the 2010 season, the New York Sentinels permanently settled in Hartford, Connecticut, becoming the Hartford Colonials. The new name was chosen by fans through an online vote. The California Redwoods relocated to Sacramento, California, and chose the name Mountain Lions, also from a fan vote. In another change for the 2010 season, each UFL team would gain their own uniform color identity, loosening them from the standard league colors.

For 2010, the league indicated that five markets were under consideration for expansion teams: Omaha, Nebraska; San Antonio or Austin, Texas; Portland, Oregon; and Salt Lake City. On April 15, 2010, Omaha was granted an expansion team, called the Omaha Nighthawks.

Mark Cuban, who was mentioned as a potential franchise owner in the league's formative stages, loaned the league $5 million in April 2010. He did not own a franchise and he was not involved in day-to-day operations of the league nor of any of its teams. In January 2011, Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks and majority owner of HDNet (now AXS TV), a cable channel and Web-streaming service which had broadcast some games of the league's inaugural two seasons, filed a federal lawsuit against the UFL for their failure to repay the loan by the October 6, 2010, deadline.

For the 2011 season, the UFL announced the addition of a franchise in the Hampton Roads (Norfolk metro area) region of Virginia, originally owned by former CFL owner Jim Speros and managed by former NFL and USFL quarterback Doug Williams. Soon after Speros' ownership was announced, he relinquished control of the team to the league and allowed bidding to be opened again. Williams later joined his alma mater Grambling State University as their head coach, resigning as Destroyers' general manager.

The UFL announced former TD Ameritrade CEO Joe Moglia as the first head coach and president of the Destroyers in November 2010; however, in January 2011, the league announced Moglia would instead coach the Omaha Nighthawks. At the same time, the Florida Tuskers ceased operations in Orlando and moved to Virginia, with Jay Gruden initially remaining as the Destroyers' coach; however, Gruden was hired the next month by the Cincinnati Bengals of the NFL.

For possible 2011 expansion, all cities that were in consideration for 2010 (Portland, San Antonio, Austin, and Salt Lake City) remained in consideration, as well as Raleigh, North Carolina; Los Angeles; and Honolulu. In regards to future expansion, Huyghue has said that they "may never have more than eight teams" depending on the league's economic situation.

The league announced it would expand into the Hampton Roads region of Virginia prior to the start of the 2011 season, giving the Virginia Destroyers time to organize. During UFL Championship Week 2010, the league announced it had a seventh franchise in place, with Huyghue indicating that it would most likely be in Los Angeles, and that the team would not be officially announced until an eighth franchise was confirmed. As events would turn out, neither franchise would materialize.

Contraction (2011)

The league suffered a setback when they had to fold the Florida Tuskers in January 2011. The league moved most of the Tuskers' staff to the Destroyers and reassigned the coaching staff already in Virginia to Omaha, firing the previous Omaha coaching staff. After this, the league reduced their goal to six teams, with Portland, Oregon; Salt Lake City; and new contender Chattanooga, Tennessee, still in consideration, and Los Angeles no longer in consideration for the third consecutive year. If a sixth team had been added, the schedule for each team would have expanded to ten games.

The schedule for the 2011 UFL season, released June 9, 2011, confirmed that the league would be locked at five teams for the season, with no expansion. The 2011 season was to shift from a traditional late fall schedule to a late summer/early fall schedule beginning in August 2011 and ending in October; however, in July 2011, the UFL announced it would delay the start of its season until mid-September due to financial issues. The league was in negotiations with CBS and TNT for coverage after Versus dropped the UFL as part of its rebranding to NBC Sports Network, but was unable to get any, and the league also lost its existing television partners. After this postponement, the league confirmed it was considering even further contraction, with the Hartford Colonials potentially on the chopping block. On August 10, 2011, the UFL announced that it would "suspend operations" of the Colonials and go forward with a four-team league.

Jerry Glanville, a UFL consultant who had previously been announced as the new head coach of the now-suspended Colonials, began a listening tour of Chattanooga, Salt Lake City and Jackson, Mississippi, in October 2011 to gauge support for UFL expansion franchises. He has stated that of the three, at least "one has a UFL team and one may get a UFL team."

On October 16, 2011, immediately after each team's fourth game, numerous reports indicated that the remainder of the 2011 season had been cancelled and that the 2011 UFL Championship Game between Las Vegas and Virginia would be moved up to the date of Virginia's last home game, which would have taken place against Omaha on October 21. This is in fact what happened; in addition to the championship game between Virginia and Las Vegas, the season concluded with a third-place game (on the same day) in Omaha between the other two teams, the first such game in outdoor professional gridiron football since the demise of the NFL's old third-place game, the Playoff Bowl, which was last contested in January 1970 following the 1969 season.

Shortened season (2012)

Despite the difficulties of 2011, UFL officials were on record as wanting to move ahead on future plans for the league. An April 2012 Las Vegas Review-Journal report indicated that the UFL would announce plans on May 1 to field a five-team league for the 2012 season, including the four 2011 teams plus a fifth expansion team. (The Review-Journal report mentioned San Antonio, Southern California, and Portland, Oregon, were expansion candidates.) The report also indicated that the UFL was arranging a broadcast TV deal with CBS Sports Network (a deal the league had desperately sought) to go along with regional supplemental coverage. However, May 1 came and went without any official announcement by the UFL on their future plans. The league had previously entertained input on the possibility of moving from a fall schedule to the spring.

Michael Huyghue, the UFL's original commissioner, resigned from the position on January 31, 2012, citing in part the league's severe financial problems and philosophical differences with the league's owners on how to move forward. Instead, the league dispensed, at least for the time being, with a central office and owners Bill Hambrecht (Las Vegas) and Bill Mayer (Virginia) oversee the league's business operations, while Locos' coach/president Jim Fassel oversees football operations. Before the fourth season starts, a rebuilding and restocking of personnel will need to take place. To conserve much-needed funds the Virginia Destroyers relocated to much smaller office space by February 2012. The league remained silent throughout winter, spring and early summer 2012, raising fears that the league had quietly folded, in the same way the proposed All American Football League, without ever actually taking the field, had done in 2010 after repeated delays of its announced inaugural schedule. However, on July 26, 2012, news broke that the UFL would indeed play a fourth season in 2012. Terms had not been finalized, but initial plans called for four teams playing an eight-game schedule (which would require an unbalanced schedule) on Wednesdays and Fridays beginning September 19, 2012.  The league did reach a deal to have their games broadcast on CBS sports.  On the league's official website  on August 1, 2012, an official schedule for 2012, with the September 19 starting date and each team playing an unbalanced, eight-game schedule was posted, matching the earlier speculation. As of that time, final postseason plans remained undecided; the date for the championship game, Friday, November 16, was set, although the location was not. Also left unanswered was the question of whether last season's unusual third-place game would be repeated. On September 6, a revised UFL schedule for 2012 was posted on the Omaha Nighthawks website  showing the season rescheduled to begin on Friday, September 28, and end on Saturday, December 1, along with the claim that CBS Sports Network was in full concordance with this revision.

All teams but Sacramento used the same home stadiums as in 2011; the Mountain Lions moved to the Triple-A baseball stadium (Raley Field) of the Sacramento franchise of the Pacific Coast League, the Sacramento River Cats. In addition, the Las Vegas Locomotives also negotiated backup plans with Cashman Field in Las Vegas, although the team was able to play its first two home games at Sam Boyd Stadium.

On October 20, 2012, after four weeks, continued financial shortfalls, an uncertain stadium situation in Las Vegas, and dramatically reduced attendances across all four markets, the UFL ceased operations for the remainder of the 2012 season. According to head of public relations Larry Weismann, the league intended on resuming the canceled schedule some time in spring 2013, with those games counting toward the 2012 season standings, then come back yet again for the next season in fall 2013.

Shutdown (2013)

By spring 2013, 78 players from the 2012 season, two head coaches from 2011 and four assistant coaches from the 2012 season had sued the league ownership for failure to pay their salaries. The Destroyers' business license expired on March 1, 2013, and that team's remaining offices were closed before that date. On March 28, 2013, a report in The Wall Street Journal noted that both the spring 2013 resumption and the fall 2013 season were canceled, and that if the league were to return, it would not have been until spring 2014 at the earliest.

Aftermath
As of 2016, all of the remaining non-liquid assets of the league sit in a warehouse in Jacksonville, Florida, with an estimated value of $100,000. The ownership lost or settled most of the lawsuits against them in 2014. The league still owes approximately $1,000,000 to the estate of Dennis Green; under a court ruling, the league itself is liable for Green's salary, as the owners had not personally guaranteed it. Hambrecht has also allegedly not paid the 78 players who sued him for back pay, even as the players won a $2.4 million judgment against Hambrecht. Frank Vuono, an executive with the UFL in its early existence, stated that Hambrecht had simply stopped paying the league's bills.

The UFL abandoned its trademarks by 2017, when Vince McMahon filed a trademark on the United Football League name. In 2018, he instead announced a new XFL, a brand used by McMahon's defunct football league that played one season in 2001; the new XFL began play in 2020 but went on a two-season hiatus due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Financial structure
The UFL's original pay structure plan included a player salary cap range of $12–20 million per team with a staff salary cap of $3 million per team. The UFL hoped to be paying at least 10 players on each roster in excess of $1 million each per season. These players would provide name value and legitimacy for the league and would fast track the development of local fanbases and a national TV audience.

The original plan was predicated on luring very wealthy owners like billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban. The UFL however ultimately proved unsuccessful in securing commitments from enough of the deep-pocketed owners their original plan required.

By time the initial season began, the league had totally dumped its original salary structure to suit the reality of the soft launch. The league's original plan would have had the average UFL salary in the $240,000-$500,000 range, far in excess of the CFL's average salary. The short schedule gutted the league's ability to generate TV or gate revenue. To make a soft launch financially tolerable, player salaries had to be dramatically scaled back—pro-rated to reflect the shortened season.

An agent representing two players with NFL experience, Jack Bechta, reported his clients were offered UFL contracts at a base salary of $35,000. He confirmed with other agents that $35,000 was the league mandated salary for skill players and $25,000 for punters, place kickers and long snappers, at least for the 2009 inaugural season. One of the players represented by the agent was a quarterback who received an offer of $35,000, although he stated that his negotiations revealed that teams are allowed to pay one quarterback more than the $35,000 salary. Bonuses were limited to $10,000 per player. In addition to the base salary, the league also paid for all housing expenses for its players.

The league's initial salaries were roughly equal to the average per-game salaries in the Canadian Football League and, adjusted for inflation, equivalent to the old XFL.  In another similarity to the XFL, teams could offer a sizable performance bonus; former Locomotives starting quarterback J. P. Losman has stated that he received a "nice sized" bonus for winning the 2009 UFL Championship Game.

In 2010, players earned $6,250 per game, for a total of $50,000 in the regular season; participants in the 2010 UFL Championship Game were paid a total of $10,000 each, with an additional $10,000 going to each player on the winning team. Starting quarterbacks earned a $200,000 salary.

There was a significant delay in payments after the 2010 season, because of a revenue shortfall, a severe underestimation of expenses, and a delay in a $50,000,000 subsidy from one of the UFL's owners. As of February 2011, the bonuses for the 2010 championship game remained unpaid, as did numerous other bills accrued by the league during the 2010 season. Most of these bills were eventually paid in March.

According to reports that surfaced in May 2011, the base salary for players was reduced to $5,000 per game (including the championship), with only a $1,000 additional bonus for winning the championship game. This contradicted the word of the commissioner, who had previously stated he aimed to increase compensation to $10,000 per game in March.

Pay was further reduced to $3,500 per game for the 2012 season.

Each player was under contract to the UFL through February of the following year, effectively creating a two-month non-compete clause after the season ends, and any NFL team that wished to sign a UFL player was supposed pay a transfer fee of $150,000 (later lowered to $25,000) to the league. This fee was waived after the 2009 season but was more strictly enforced for 2010; in practice, no NFL team ever paid the fee, and the players who did jump to the NFL ended up paying the fee out of their UFL salaries. The league dropped the transfer fee for the 2011 season.

For 2009, each team was unofficially tied to a pair of divisions in the National Football League. In addition to this feature, the league held a draft on June 18, 2009, the UFL Premiere Season Draft. A second draft was held on June 2, 2010. The 2011 UFL Draft was held on May 2, with player selections announced via Twitter. No formal draft was staged prior to the 2012 UFL season.

The original plan was for owners to pay $30 million to buy a half interest in a team. The league would own the other half. The UFL had difficulties finding willing owners the UFL leadership considered suitable.

The UFL planned for each team to eventually sell shares to the public that they hoped could raise another $60 million.  This never came to pass.

Ultimately, the league accrued financial losses of between $120 million and $150 million over the course of the league's four years of play. Paul Pelosi's investment alone was between $10 million and $50 million, according to federal disclosure forms filed by his wife Nancy. For his part, Pelosi initially anticipated losing $6 million per year, based on an anticipated 20,000 fans per game, and hoped to make up the difference from a renegotiated television contract in 2011 that paid enough rights fees for the league to turn a profit. While he did reach the 20,000 fan threshold in Sacramento in 2010 and 2011, the paying television contract never materialized. Hambrecht sustained losses of $40 million on the league.

Teams
Six teams played in the UFL over the course of its history, no more than five in any given year. The teams that played in the league were: the Las Vegas Locomotives, Hartford Colonials (originally the New York Sentinels), Omaha Nighthawks, Sacramento Mountain Lions (originally the California Redwoods), Florida Tuskers, and Virginia Destroyers. The Florida Tuskers and Virginia Destroyers were legally separate teams, but because the Tuskers folded before the Destroyers began play, the UFL assigned most of the Tuskers' staff to the Destroyers and the two are typically conflated for the purpose of league history.

Only stadiums in which the team played more than one game are listed.

Timeline

Seasons

Rules
In an approach similar to previous football leagues, the UFL mostly adhered to standard NFL and football rules with a few differences of note:

No "Tuck Rule" – In the NFL from  to , if a passer brought his arm forward in a passing motion and then lost possession of the ball as he was attempting to tuck it back toward his body, it was considered a forward pass (and thus an incomplete pass if the ball hits the ground). This "tuck rule" had become one of the most controversial rules in the NFL; in the UFL, however, an identical play was called a fumble. The tuck rule was eliminated by the NFL prior to the 2013 season.
Blitzing/Rushing – On each play, the defense was required to use four down linemen who must have been in a 3- or 4-point stance at the snap. No more than six defenders could rush the passer. Penalty for violating this rule was illegal defense (signaled as unsportsmanlike conduct), with a 15-yard penalty and a first down. This rule was meant to both protect the quarterback and encourage more scoring. A similar rule was in effect for the NFL's now-defunct Pro Bowl for several years.
Intentional grounding – A quarterback was allowed to intentionally ground the ball to avoid a sack, provided he got the throw back to the line of scrimmage. He did not have to be outside the pocket to do so.
Fumbling out of the end zones – If the ball is fumbled forward into and out of the end zone, it is placed back at the spot of the fumble, whereas in the NFL this play is ruled a touchback and possession goes over to the defending team.
Instant replay – As opposed to the NFL, where the referee reviews disputed plays (other than turnovers, scoring plays, and plays inside the two-minute warning) through a video monitor on the sidelines, all UFL replay reviews were viewed upstairs by a replay official, who had 90 seconds to make a ruling.
Touchdown celebrations – Player celebrations (individual or group) were permitted only in the end zones or the bench areas.
Face masks – The UFL allowed the single-bar face mask, which the NFL had outlawed in 2007. Only one player, punter Scott Player, used the single-bar mask.
Overtime – Starting in 2010 (for the playoffs) and 2012 (for all other games), the NFL has adopted a modified sudden death overtime, where sudden death occurs only if the opening drive of overtime ends in a touchdown (before, any score would immediately end the extra session). The UFL from its inception employed an overtime system that assured each team at least one possession. Therefore, if the first team scored on their opening drive (even if it is a touchdown), their opponent was then given the opportunity to equal that score on the next drive, or surpass it if the other team's first drive resulted in anything less than a touchdown and 2-point conversion. If both teams remain tied after each has had one possession, overtime then reverted to sudden death. If the score remained tied after 15 minutes, the game ended in a tie, except that post-season games will be played to a victorious conclusion. The actual application of the OT rules occurred during the first UFL championship game in 2009 when Las Vegas won on a field goal after the first possession by Florida ended in an interception.

Other differences from NFL
Officials – The UFL's roster of on-field officials included two women, head linesman Terri Valenti (who joined the league in 2009) and line judge Sarah Thomas (2010). The officials wore unique attire during the 2009 inaugural season—red polo shirts with black numbering, lettering, and piping, along with black pants and caps that were the same as in the NFL (white cap for the referee, black for the other officials); the combination set them apart from not only their NFL and college counterparts but from the teams on the field, none of whom sported red jerseys in 2009. The officials changed to traditional black-and-white-striped uniforms with green accents starting in 2010.
Chain crew and markers – Instead of bright orange, the chain crews' equipment (including vests, yardage "sticks", down markers, and endzone pylons) were lime green, one of the UFL's signature colors.

Scheduling
For the 2009 and 2010 seasons, the UFL scheduled its games on non-traditional evenings for pro football: Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday evenings. Though these games conflicted with high school and college football events in some locations, the UFL's scheduling plan was different from that of the National Football League, which is prohibited under federal anti-trust exemption law (15 U.S.C. § 1291, i.e., the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961) from broadcasting any professional game within seventy-five miles of any inter-collegiate or high school game on any Friday or Saturday, beginning with the second Friday in September and ending the second Saturday in December (15 U.S.C. § 1293).

In 2011, the league originally intended to play its games primarily on the traditional Sunday afternoon time setting for professional football, but starting its season in August, a full month before the start of the NFL regular season. However, financial difficulties forced the league to return to its schedule from previous years.

In 2012 it was announced that games would begin in September and that the schedule would be played over eight weeks. When this announcement was made, it had been anticipated that the league would have expanded beyond four active members. Games were to be played on Wednesday and Friday nights with six weeks of regular season action and two weeks of playoffs, culminating with a championship game in early November. The eventual schedule announced in August 2012 varied somewhat from this, with the regular season extended to eight weeks but only one playoff game. A revision announced in early September moved the opening week back to the last week in September. The regular season was to be unbalanced, with each team playing two of the others three times and the third one only twice. The 2012 championship game had originally been rescheduled to be played on December 1; during one week in late October the games were to have been played on Tuesday and Thursday nights.

Broadcasting
All league games except for two during the first two seasons were carried nationally by either Versus or Mark Cuban's HDNet. The arrangement with these two outlets garnered some exposure for the league, but little revenue, as it was obligated to purchase the broadcast time for the games and then attempt to recoup the expense entailed, and potentially any profit, by reselling commercial sponsorships. The only exceptions were two games involving the Hartford Colonials, games that Versus originally held rights to, rights that were granted to New England Sports Network in 2010. In 2009, Versus carried eight games (including the championship), mostly on Thursday nights, while HDNet carried the remaining five. All games were available in high definition. Versus' new play-by-play team for 2010 consisted of former TNN announcer Craig Minervini on play-by-play, Doug Flutie as color analyst, ex-NFL linebacker Ryan Nece on the sidelines and Damon Hack of Sports Illustrated included. HDNet had Kenny Rice as play-by-play commentator, Paul Maguire as color commentator, and Ron Kruck and Paul Crane on the sidelines. The New England Sports Network had Mike Logan for one game and Brett Haber for the other game, with Scott Zolak providing color commentary and John Chandler and Tony Terzi on the sidelines. All of the games were webcast for those fans who didn't have either of the stations.

Neither Versus nor HDNet agreed to carry games in 2011. Three games were picked up by Comcast SportsNet California, all of which involved the Mountain Lions at home; Grant Napear doing play-by-play while Jerry Glanville handled color commentary, with additional contributions by Mike Lamb, Mike Pawlawski, and Dan Dibley. The Destroyers reached an agreement with Comcast SportsNet Mid-Atlantic for coverage of two regular season home games, one of which was never actually played; Glanville again provided color commentary, while CSN broadcasters Brent Harris and Dave Johnson called play-by-play for the Sacramento and Omaha games respectively. The date for the second Destroyers game scheduled to be covered by Comcast Mid-Atlantic became the actual date of the rescheduled 2011 UFL Championship Game, which was then broadcast by Comcast SportsNet Mid-Atlantic, which was the game's sole television broadcaster. Internet streaming also resumed for the 2011 season, albeit with a new carrier Veetle streaming the game to the Web and to mobile devices.

For 2012, the UFL stated they would broadcast all games live nationally on CBS Sports Network while supplementing that with regional programming. The league finalized their deal with CBS Sports Network on July 26, 2012. It was later revealed that this deal included no payment of any kind from CBS Sports, and the UFL was required to pay all projected television production costs (approximately $150,000 per game) up front each week: unlike conventional sports television agreements where the network pays the league and/or team, the UFL actually had to pay CBS Sports to air its games, meaning that the league was then responsible for selling advertising time to recoup its expenses and generate any revenues from the broadcasts. The 2012 season was not broadcast on the Internet, in part due to the league Webmaster leaving during the previous off-season.

In 2010, all five UFL teams signed agreements with local radio stations to carry play-by-play, a marked contrast from 2009, when no games were carried on radio. The Hartford Colonials were broadcast on WPOP and broadcast two games locally on NESN that didn't air on HDNet or Versus. The Florida Tuskers were broadcast on WYGM. The Locos broadcast on KWWN (or KBAD when conflicts arose). KHTK carries Mountain Lions games, while KOZN was the radio home of the Nighthawks. In 2011, WVSP-FM and WGH-AM became the broadcast homes of the Destroyers. Radio broadcasts continued in Sacramento and Omaha in 2012, but were discontinued in Las Vegas and Virginia.

Training facilities
During 2009, the UFL used two sites for the teams' training camps and regular season practices, with California and Las Vegas using a $20 million facility constructed by the City of Casa Grande, Arizona, and Florida and New York practicing at the Citrus Bowl in Orlando after failing to come to terms with Vero Beach, Florida, on the use of that city's former Dodgertown facility. Beginning in 2010, the league's teams trained and practiced in facilities in their own home markets; in 2012, Sacramento trained at Charles C. Hughes Stadium, Las Vegas trained at The Henderson International School and Omaha trained at the local Kroc Center.

The William Hambrecht Trophy
The trophy given annually to the UFL champions was The William Hambrecht Trophy, named after the Las Vegas Locos owner and UFL founder. When the trophy was first awarded in 2009, the Hambrecht Trophy displayed similar qualities to the Vince Lombardi Trophy. It featured the star from the UFL logo with a streak coming off of one of the corners down onto the base. This design was scrapped after year one. For the 2010 season, the Hambrecht Trophy was redesigned. The second design featured two bases in the shape of the UFL logo connected by four columns with a UFL football on a kicking tee placed on the top base. The previous design was then used as the Championship Game MVP trophy.

See also

UFL Championship Game

References

Defunct American football leagues in the United States
Sports leagues established in 2009
2012 disestablishments in the United States
Articles which contain graphical timelines
2009 establishments in the United States
Sports leagues disestablished in 2012


It has been a while since the smell of my own freshly ground coffee permeated throughout our shared living space with indie folk music playing softly in the background. As a creative who revels in partaking in solitary activities, I garner inspirations through trivial yet effective mediums such as a sip of well-brewed morning coffee. Thus, having an ambience such as is what I always love to conjure time and time again.
However, in recent days, I have been spending less time on self-introspection. So, this morning was a nice change of pace.
Although it's justifiable for me not to post anything here during exam season, I have been overwhelmed with a constant urge to write something… anything.
I just want to write about the way the birds are soaring freely in the skies.
I just want to write about the way my duvet snugly envelops my whole figure to keep me warm at night.
I just want to write about the way my coffee grows bitter in taste as its temperature lowers down with the progression of time.
I just want to write for the sake of writing, and sometimes, I feel like I have forgotten how to write and that scares me more than words can say.
The next thing I know is that I have already started writing within a fleeting moment. And in that moment, I can feel relief washing all over me.


••• The Broadsheet takes a look at the newsstand business, in light of Community Board 1's recommendation that an application for one on Warren* be denied. (*The Broadsheet says it's at the southwest corner of Greenwich and Warren, but when the matter was discussed at the CB1 Tribeca Committee in December, it was said to be on Warren between Greenwich and West.) The city can still approve it.
••• DNAinfo has a 3-D map showing future buildings across the city. It may need some tinkering. 23 Park Row (blue) will be 53 stories, while 1 Beekman (the little aqua building at right) will be 25 stories—and yet the former is shown as four times the size of the latter.


text:
Q: How do I have a variable on a web page that updates when needed? I have three radio buttons.  Each has a value (1, 2 or 3).  Under the radio buttons, I need a number to appear that matches the value of the radio button currently selected.  This must update in real time.
Currently I have something like this:
<input type="radio" Id="case" value="1" checked>
<input type="radio" Id="case" value="2">
<input type="radio" Id="case" value="3">

When the page is loaded, the javascript runs once, and prints "1".  I want this number to change when I select another radio button, but I'm not sure how to do that.  I'm flexible in solutions, does not have to be in javascript... any suggestions would be appreciated.  I'm using Rails.

A: This is done by using addEventListener. Consider the following code ::

function changeValue(event) {
    if ( event.target.getAttribute('type') == 'radio' ) {
        document.getElementById('newValue').innerHTML = event.target.value;
    }
}

document.getElementById('buttons').addEventListener( 'click', changeValue, false );

    <input type="radio" name="case" value="1" checked>
    <input type="radio" name="case" value="2">
    <input type="radio" name="case" value="3">

1

This should help you get started writing your code that you need.
Keep in mind to give all of your inputs the same name, not the same id. The same name keeps multiple inputs from being checked at the same time. Setting the same id to multiple elements is not the standard and could cause confusion for you.

A: Also one of the possible methods:
<input type="radio" name="case" value="1" checked />Value 1

<input type="radio" name="case" value="2" />Value 2

<input type="radio" name="case" value="3" />Value 3

Selected value is: 1

A: Try with the given code. May be it will be the thing you need.

<!doctype html>

    <title>content</title>

<input type="radio" Id="case" value="1" checked  name="a">
<input type="radio" Id="Radio1" value="2" name="a">
<input type="radio" Id="Radio2" value="3"  name="a">

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Back to the Knowledge Base
Candidate Standard
US Musical Work Licensing Choreography Standard (Version 1.0.1)
Created by DDEX Secretariat, last modified on 2020-04-01
This section of the DDEX Knowledge Base contains version 1.0.1 of the "US Musical Work Licensing Choreography Standard"
Download Standard
Download Standard (PDF)
Download/Print standard tables (XLS)
XML Schema Definition Files (ZIP)
MWL is a "Candidate Standard", which is a formal standard approved by DDEX for which DDEX has not had any information about live implementations. Once DDEX has received such input, it is expected that MWL will be promoted to "DDEX Standard".
Before starting an implementation, DDEX recommends to read Starting an Implementation and Licensing DDEX Standards.
The DDEX Data Dictionary ...
The general index contains all terms used in the latest AVS (Version 4) as well as all terms from RIN 2.0, MEAD 1.1, PIE 1.0 and RDR-N 1.5. Other standards will be added over time. Clicking on an entry in the general index will take you to the relevant edition of the DDEX Data Dictionary.
Message Editions
... for the Electronic Release Notification (ERN 4.3)
... for the Transfer of Catalogues of Releases and Resources by Reassignment of Rights Controller Information (CT 1.0)
... for Recording Information Notification (RIN 2.0)
... for Media Enrichment and Description (MEAD 1.1)
... for Party Identification and Enrichment (PIE 1.0)
... for the Recording Data and Rights Notification Standard (RDR-N, Version 1.5).
Allowed Value Set Editions
... for the Allowed Value Sets (Version 4)
Data Dictionary editions published before 2022
... for the Recording Data and Rights Choreography Standard (RDR-C, Version 1.0): Message Structure and AVSs
... for the US Letters of Direction Choreography Standard (LoD, Version 1.0): Message Structure and AVSs
... for the Electronic Release Notification Message Suite Standard (ERN, Version 4.2): Message Structure and AVSs
... for the US Musical Work Licensing Choreography Standard (MWL, Version 1.0): Message Structure and AVSs
... for the Standard for the Communication of Media Enrichment and Description Information (MEAD): Message Structure and AVSs
... for the Musical Work Right Share Notification Choreography Standard (MWN, Version 1.1)
... for the Standard for communicating links between Resources and Musical Works (Version 1.1)
... for the Recording Data and Rights Standard (Version 1.4)
... for Release Deliveries using SFTP or Web Service (Version 1.7)
... for the Recording Information Notification (Version 1.1)
... for Work and Share Notifications
... for Works Licensing
Why are there multiple data dictionaries?
This standard was developed by the member organisations of the Digital Data Exchange, LLC (DDEX) and provides a suite of messages that give a uniform mechanism for companies such as Record Companies, Digital and Mobile Service Providers (DSPs) and others to request a licence for a Musical Work (or Right Shares thereof) from owners (or agents of owners) of such Work or Right Shares and for the owners (or agents) to provide licences (or rejections) back. This standard can also be used to communicate "intentions to use" to owners (or agents of owners) in the context of controlled composition clauses or where statutory licences are in place and for such owners (or agents of owners) to acknowledge such an intention to use. Finally, this standard provides a mechanism to revoke existing licences.
While this standard can be used by any company as outlined above, it was specifically designed to address to requirements of the US market.
Any organisation wishing to implement this (or any other DDEX Standard) is required to apply for an Implementation Licence. The terms of the licence and an application form can be found at https://ddex.net/implementation/implementation-licence-and-ddex-party-identifiers.
The messages and the choreography defined in this standard provides a mechanism for (potential) Licensees of Musical Works (or Right Shares thereof) such as record companies, DSPs and other companies to:
Send to (potential) Licensors (usually music publishers or Collective Management Organisations or their agents) requests for licences with information about
The involved Musical Work(s) or Right Share(s);
Any Sound Recording(s) or video(s) that embed such Musical Work(s);
The Release(s) that contain such Sound Recording(s) or video(s); and
The conditions for which the licence is sought.
Send to Rights Controllers (usually music publishers or Collective Management Organisations or their agents) "intentions to use" a Musical Work where the Licensee considers that it already has a licence but needs to communicate information to a relevant Rights Controller. Such "intentions to use" can contain information about
Proof that a licence already exists. This may take the form of a contract containing a relevant controlled composition clause or information indicating that a statutory licence applies, or any other document deemed appropriate by the relevant Rights Controller.
Furthermore, the messages and the choreography defined in this standard provide a mechanism for Rights Controllers (usually music publishers or Collective Management Organisations or their agents) to
Reply to such requests for licences by granting or refusing a licence; and
Confirm or reject t he acceptance of such "intentions to use".
Finally, this standard provides a uniform mechanism for Licensees or Licensors to revoke a licence.
2.2 Organisation of the Document
This DDEX Standard has six clauses. Clauses 1 and 2 provide a general introduction and the scope of this standard. Clauses 3 and 4 give a set of normative references as well as terms, definitions and abbreviations that are used in this standard.
Clause 5 then provides the Musical Work Licensing Choreography for the US market and two Message Exchange Protocols: FTP and Web Services. Finally, Clause 6 defines the messages for the US Musical Work Licensing Choreography.
2.3 Release Notes (informative)
Version 1.0.1 (this version) corrects a minor bug by making the AvsVersionId attribute on all message tags optional and changes the data type to xs:string.
3 Normative References
The following normative documents contain provisions, which through reference in this text constitute provisions of this Standard. For dated references, subsequent amendments to, or revisions of, any of these publications do not apply. For undated references, the latest version applies.
DDEX Data Dictionary Standard. Latest Version
DDEX Party Identifier (DPID) Standard. Latest Version
IFPI: Global Release Identifier (GRid) Standard. Latest Version
IETF. RfC 2026. SSH File Transfer Protocol. October 2001.
IETF. RfC 2616. Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1). 1999
IETF. RfC 3986. Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax. 2005
IETF. RfC 5023. The Atom Publishing Protocol. October 2007
IETF RfC 5646, Tags for Identifying Languages. Latest Version.
IETF. RfC 6797. HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS). November 2012
ISO 639-1988, Code for the representation of the names of languages
ISO 3166-1:1997 Codes for the representation of names of countries and their sub-divisions – Part 1: Country codes
ISO 3901:2001, Information and documentation – International Standard Recording Code (ISRC)
ISO 8601:2004, Data elements and interchange formats – Information interchange – Representation of dates and times[1]
W3C. XML Schema Part 1: Structures. Second Edition. 2004
W3C. XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes. Second Edition. 2004
[1] Information on ISO 8601 can be found in Annex D of Part 2 (Datatypes Second Edition) of the XML Schema standard (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#isoformats).
4 Terms and Abbreviations
A Party administrating Rights on behalf of one or more RightsControllers (in the context of this standard a Collecting Publisher).
A grouping of one or more DDEX Messages to be processed by the recipient together.
Collective Management Organisation (CMO)
A Party (that is usually owned or controlled by its members and/or organised on a not-for-profit basis) that, as its sole or main purpose, administers copyright or related rights on behalf of at least two Rights Controllers, for the collective benefit of those Rights Contorllers where it is authorised by law or by way of assignment or Licence.
A Collective Management Organisation may also be a Licensor, a Rights Administrator, a Licensing Agent or a Rights Holder.
A Collective Management Organisation may or may not be the Message Sender or Message Recipient of a message in a specific information exchange defined by a DDEX Standard.
Distribution Share
The proportion of the overall Musical Work that has been assigned to a Collecting Publisher or Administrator. Note that a Writer can have zero, one or many Original Publishers, and hence zero, one or many Distribution Shares.
A service that acts as a broker for information exchange, typically using DDEX Messages. In the context of the Musical Works Notification, Musical Works Licensing and Letter of Direction Standards defined by DDEX, a Hub acts as an intermediary for information exchange to facilitate sharing of Right Share information. Hubs may also play a role in facilitating licensing processes between (prospective) Licensors and (prospective) Licensees. Hubs may also act as routers and/or provide data caching functionality.
A Party that is granted a Licence in respect of rights in one or more Creations, by a Licensor. The Licensee may be a human being or other legal person or corporate entity. The Licensee may or may not be the Message Sender or Message Recipient of a message in a specific information exchange defined by a DDEX Standard.
Licensor
A Party that grants a Licence in respect of rights in one or more Creations to one or more Licensees in accordance with the authorities it has been granted to do so by one or more Rights Controller(s), Rights Administrator(s) (where applicable), Licensing Agent(s) (where applicable) or Rights Holder(s). The Licensor may be a human being or other legal person or corporate entity. The Licensor may or may not also be the Rights Controller, the Rights Administrator, the Licensing Agent or the Rights Holder in the Creation(s) that are the subject of the Licence granting the rights. The Licensor may or may not be the Message Sender or Message Recipient of a message in a specific information exchange defined by a DDEX Standard.
Manuscript Share
The proportion of a Musical Work written by a Writer, as agreed between the Writers. Typically represented as a percentage or a fraction. Manuscript Shares may occasionally vary by territory and/or rights type.
A Work intended to be perceivable as a combination of sounds, with or without accompanying text.
Any words that are intended to be expressed with a MusicalWork (often termed Lyrics) form part of that MusicalWork; not all MusicalWorks have Lyrics.
A MusicalWork may be expressed and fixed to become part of a SoundRecording or a Video Recording, or may be used to create notated music (sheet music, scores, instrumental parts) or sound generation codes (such as MIDI files).
In some cases, the MusicalWork comes into existence simultaneously with its expression. This is common in extemporised forms such as jazz music.
Original Publisher
A RightsController who is assigned rights directly by the Writer (as opposed to by another Publisher). Note that a writer may have zero, one or many Original Publishers.
Original Publisher Share
The proportion of the overall Musical Work that a writer has assigned to an Original Publisher. Note that each Writer can have zero, one or many Original Publishers, and hence zero, one or many Original Publisher Shares. As opposed to collection shares, an OriginalPublisherShare does not define a share for the collection of money.
A Release is an abstract entity representing a bundle of one or more Resources compiled by an Issuer. The Resources in Releases are normally primarily sound recordings or music audio-visual recordings, but this is not invariably the case. The Release is not itself the item of trade (or "Product"). Products have more extensive attributes than Releases; one Release may be disseminated in many different Products.
Right Share
A percentage or fraction of a right for a Musical Work for a particular time and place in which a party claims a controlling interest. Note: controlling interest includes ownership and/or administration.
Rights Controller
A Party that controls rights in one or more Creations in respect of some or all rights for specific territories, time periods, Rights Types, Usage Types and Commercial Model Types (which may be anything up to and including all rights for the world, in perpetuity, for all types of Usage and for all types of Commercial Models). Creations include Musical Works, Sound Recordings and other Resources as well as Releases.
A Rights Controller is in many cases also the Licensor.
A Rights Controller may be a human being or other legal person or corporate entity.
A Rights Controller may or may not also be the Rights Administrator, the Licensing Agent or the Rights Holder.
A Rights Controller may or may not be the Message Sender or Message Recipient of a message in a specific information exchange defined by a DDEX Standard.
Rights Type
The type of right covered by a RightShare as defined by relevant law. Rights Types vary between territories. Typical rights types include mechanical rights, performing rights and synchronisation rights.
An audible persistent manifestation of a subject (often but not necessarily of a performance).
A modern set of web technologies that allow small pieces of information, typically in the form of XML files, to be exchanged. Augmented with FTP (or other file exchange mechanisms) they can be used to communicate Releases along the music supply chain.
Web Service Call
The sending of an XML document to a port/address on a web server, using HTTP or HTTPS.
Web Service Response
The sending of an XML document in direct response to a Web Service Call, using HTTP or HTTPS.
For the avoidance of doubt: the appropriate response is always the message indicated in the appropriate Choreography.
A creative creator of the musical or lyrical elements of a Musical Work. Writers include Adapters, Arrangers, Authors, Composers. ComposerLyricists, Librettists, Lyricists, NonLyricAuthors and Translators.
Writer Share
See Manuscript Share.
4.2 Abbreviations
AMEP Automated Message Exchange Protocol
ACA Appointed Certification Agency
AVS Allowed Value Set
BP Business Profile
BWARM Bulk Communication of Work and Recording Metadata
CISAC
Confédération internationale des sociétés d'auteurs et compositeurs, the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (see cisac.org)
CA Certification Agency
CT Conformance Tester
DAW Digital Audio Workstation
Digital Data Exchange
DSIG Digital Signature
DSP Digital Service Provider (incudes Mobile Service Providers)
DSR Digital Sales Reporting
ERN Electronic Release Notification
FTP File Transfer Protocol (FTP specifically includes SFTP)
GRid Global Release Identifier
HTTP Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP specifically includes HTTPS)
HTTPS Secure Hypertext Transport Protocol
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission (see iec.ch)
ISO International Organisation for Standardisation (see iso.org)
MEAD Media Enrichment And Description
MIME Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
MWL Musical Works Licensing
MWN Musical Works Notification
MRBV
Multi-Record-Block Variant
PCA Private Certification Agency
PDF Portable Document Format
PIE Party Identification and Enrichment
REST REpresentational State Transfer
RIN Recording Information Notification
SFTP Secure FTP
SRBV
Single-Record-Block Variant
TIS Territory Information System (a CISAC Standard)
TLS Transport Layer Security
UGC User-generated content
URL Uniform Resource Locator
XML eXtensible Markup Language
XSD XML Schema Definition
W3C World Wide Web Consortium (see w3c.org)
WS Web Service
5 Musical Work Licensing Choreography for the US Market
5.1 Overall Choreography
5.1.1 Direct Communication
The diagrams below depict the choreography defined by this standard.
It should be noted that a prerequisite for an efficient use of the messages in the standard requires that the (potential) Licensee identifies the Rights Controller(s) of the Right Share(s) in the Musical Work(s) it wishes to license. The most efficient way would be to use DDEX's Musical Work Right Share Notification Choreography Standard for this.
Figure 1 – US Musical Work Licensing Choreography (Licensing)
Figure 2 – US Musical Work Licensing Choreography (Revocation)
The table below summarises the points in the US Musical Work Licensing Choreography that a message is sent.
Table 1: Messages and Triggers in the US Musical Work Licensing Choreography Standard
Message Name
Initiating Event
LicenseRequestMessage
A (potential) Licensee has gathered ownership information with respect to a Musical Work (or Right Share thereof)[1] and wishes to obtain a licence from the relevant Rights Controller (e.g. music publisher or Collective Management Organisation or its agent).
A Licensee has gathered ownership information with respect to a Musical Work and has determined that it already has a licence and it wishes to inform the relevant Rights Controller about its intent to use the Musical Work.
LicenseMessage
The Rights Controller of a Musical Work (or Right Share thereof) has received a Licence Request in the form of a LicenseRequestMessage and wishes to grant, or reject, the request.
The Rights Controller of a Musical Work (or Right Share thereof) has received an intention-to-use notification in the form of a LicenseRequestMessage and wishes to inform the Licensee that it accepts (or rejects) the supplementary documentation as evidence for the licence.
LicenseRevocationMessage
One of the parties of a l icence for the use of a Musical Work (or Right Share thereof) needs to revoke the licence.
ManifestMessage
A party has finished collating messages in accordance with this standard into a Batch and wishes its business partner to commence ingesting it.
FtpAcknowledgementMessage
A party receives a Batch of messages in accordance with this standard. The party then acknowledges receipt of each message (this is not an agreement with its content).
[1] By employing DDEX's Musical Work Right Share Notification Choreography Standard, for example.
5.1.2 Communication via a Hub
5.1.2.1 Introduction
Licensees and Licensors can exchange the LicenseRequestMessage, LicenseMessage and LicenseRevocationMessage with the help of a central Hub. The standard supports two modes:
The Hub acts solely as a router where the Message Sender addresses the message at the ultimate Message Recipient but sends the message, in accordance with Clause 5.2 or 5.3, to a Hub. The Hub then forwards the message to the ultimate Message Recipient, typically without ingesting any of the message content; or
The Hub acts as a message distributor where the Message Sender addresses the message at the Hub, which then determines, from the message content, the ultimate Message Recipient(s) and forwards the message.
This choreography does not allow signalling back to the original Message Sender whether the forwarding was successful.
Details for both modes are provided below.
5.1.2.2 Hub as a Router
A prospective Licensee may send a LicenseRequestMessage to a Hub, expecting it to be delivered to a Rights Controller from which the prospective Licensee wishes to obtain a licence. The MessageHeader/MessageRecipent shall therefore contain the PartyId of the Rights Controller.
The Hub shall then forward the LicenseRequestMessage to the identified Rights Controller. If this communication is effected in accordance with this standard, the MessageHeader/MessageSender of the forwarded message shall be the Hub and the MessageHeader/SentOnBehalfOf shall be the sender of the original LicenseRequestMessage.
The same approach would be used for communicating LicenseMessages and LicenseRevocationMessages.
5.1.2.3 Hub as a Message Distributor
A prospective Licensee may also send a LicenseRequestMessage for one or more licences to a Hub addressed to the Hub, i.e. the MessageHeader/MessageRecipent shall contain the PartyId of the Hub.
The Hub shall then determine the appropriate Rights Controller(s) (by evaluating the Right Shares referenced from the LicenseRequest composite in the LicenseRequestMessage) and send new LicenseRequestMessage(s) to the identified Rights Controller(s). If this communication is effected in accordance with this standard, the MessageHeader/MessageSender of the forwarded message shall be the Hub and the MessageHeader/SentOnBehalfOf shall be the sender of the original LicenseRequestMessage.
5.2 SFTP Choreography
The exchange of messages defined in this standard shall use the SFTP using the naming convention defined in this Clause.
The arrival of the Batch on the SFTP server shall be signified by placing a Manifest file at the appropriate location. The Manifest shall refer, indirectly or indirectly to all files that are part of the Batch. The Manifest may only be placed on the SFTP server, once all other files have been completely uploaded.
5.2.2 Folder Naming Convention
To ensure sequential processing, a Batch is identified by the date and time of its creation in the form YYYYMMDDhhmmssnnn with
YYYY being the year of Batch creation;
MM being the month of Batch creation;
DD being the day of Batch creation;
hh being the hour of Batch creation;
mm being the minute of Batch creation;
ss being the second of Batch creation; and
nnn being the millisecond of Batch creation.
5.2.3 XML File Naming Convention
Each message sent in the Batch shall be named as follows: RRRR_SSSSS.xml with
RRRR being the role of the message as follows:
"License_Request" for the LicenseRequestMessage;
"License" for the LicenseMessage; and
"License_Revocation" for the LicenserevocationMessage;
SSSSS being a zero padded serial number within that Batch.
5.2.4 Supporting File Naming Convention
Any document supporting a DDEX message in a Batch shall be placed into the same folder as the XML message and be named as follows: FFFF_NNNN.ext with
FFFF being the file name (without extension) of the file to which supporting information is provided;
NNNN being a serial number; and
ext being an extension suitable to the data type (e.g. xml for an XML file or csv for a comma-separated value flat file).
5.2.5 Manifest
Once the message sender has uploaded all files of the Batch, the sender shall upload a manifest file. The manifest file shall be called manifest.xml and shall be placed into the same folder as all other files.
Its syntax is defined in Clause 6 .
5.2.6 Acknowledgement
Once the message recipient has downloaded a file from within the Batch, the recipient shall upload an acknowledgement file. The acknowledgement file shall be called ACK_FFFF.xml with FFFF being the file name (without extension) of the message acknowledged.
The acknowledgement shall be placed into the same folder as the acknowledged file. Its syntax is defined in Clause 6 .
5.2.7 Size of Batch
Each file within a Batch should contain up to 500 Musical Works. Sender and recipient may agree other limits.
The maximum number of files to be part of a Batch is not limited but may be agreed by Sender and recipient.
5.2.8 Hybrid Batches
It is possible to place messages defined in other DDEX Choreography Standards relating to Musical Works in the same Batch as messages defined in accordance with this standard.
5.3 Web Service Choreography
This standard defines two approaches to communicating Licence requests, intentions to use, Licences, confirmations for intentions to use as well as Licence revocations:
Asymmetric where only the (prospective) Licensor needs to publish and maintain a Web Service and where the (prospective) Licensee will need call these Web Services and thus initiate the communication.
Symmetric where both the (prospective) Licensor and the (prospective) Licensee publish and maintain a Web Service.
They are described below.
5.3.2 Symmetric Choreography
The process of symmetric communication between (prospective) Licensee and (prospective) Licensor contains theses steps:
The (prospective) Licensee calls the Web Service endpoint published by the (prospective) Licensor using the POST LicenseRequest call with a LicenseRequestMessage;
The (prospective) Licensor replies to this call with a LicenseMessage (if it has all information available – not shown in the diagram) or a HTTP status code which informs the (prospective) Licensee that the information will be provided at a later stage;
For each licence request that has not been fulfilled immediately, the (prospective) Licensor can call the (prospective) Licensee POST License Web Service endpoint with the requested LicenseMessage once it has assembled the information.
A Licensor can call the same Web Service end point to communicate a LicenseRevocationMessage.
Theses steps are depicted below.
It is also possible to use this choreography in a set-up where the communication between Licensee and Licensor is facilitated by an intermediary. In such cases, the intermediary would communicate with the Licensee as if it were a Licensor. Similarly, the intermediary would communicate with the Licensor as if it were a Licensee.
5.3.3 Asymmetric Choreography with Atom Feeds
The process of asymmetric communication where only the Licensor publishes and maintains a Web Service between (prospective) Licensee and (prospective) Licensor contains theses steps:
The (prospective) Licensor replies to this call with a simple Acknowledgement.
The (prospective) Licensee regularly calls the Web Service endpoint published by the (prospective) Licensor using the GET LicenseList call;
The (prospective) Licensor replies to this with an Atom feed providing URLs for all LicenseMessages and LicenseRevocationMessages that are ready to be collected;
The (prospective) Licensee can then call the (prospective) Licensor GET License Web Service endpoint for each URL provided in Step 4 to which the (prospective) Licensor will respond with the requested LicenseMessage or LicenseRevocationMessage.
5.3.4 URLs
The approach to Web Service-based information deliveries is based on URLs that are set at the discretion of the provider of the Web Service interface who publishes the Web Service to its business partners to share information with them.
While it can be assumed that many URLs follow a common syntax there is no compulsion to use this approach. Similarly it is not compulsory that all URLs from a particular Web Service provider follow a common syntax.
All a company that wishes to offer a Web Service in accordance with this standard has to do, is to publish the URL for the relevant Web Service end points to its business partner(s) and make sure that the URLs placed in the responses to Web Service Calls are (i) valid and (ii) active.
Wherever this standard only mentions the HTTP protocol, it is to be understood to allow HTTPS communications.
5.3.5 Personalising the Feed
For companies that wish to receive or send licences it is often essential that the web server of a company knows who is calling one of its web services. This can be done with or without formal authentication (see the next two sub-clauses). The benefit of using formal authentication is that it also allows to make the information exchange secure.
5.3.6 Web Server Set-up and Authentication
This standard does not define an authentication mechanism for the Web Service-based communication between companies. Should the two parties require their communication to be authenticated, they are free to use any of the existing web-based authentication methods including, but not limited to, Basic Auth, HTTP Digest Authentication, HTTPS Client Authentication, OAUTH, etc.
5.3.8 Web Service Commands
5.3.8.1 POST LicenseRequest
5.3.8.1.1 Purpose
This command can be used by a (prospective) Licensee to request a licence from a (prospective) Licensor.
The (prospective) Licensee will call, after appropriate authentication if needed, the Web Service address previously agreed between (prospective) Licensee and (prospective) Licensor with a LicenseRequestMessage.
5.3.8.1.2 Syntax of Reply
The web server shall return one of the following standard HTTP status codes with their standard HTTP response code semantics:
200 (OK);
202 (Request accepted);
400 (Bad request);
401 (Unauthorised);
404 (Not found);
503 (Service unavailable due to a temporary overloading or maintenance of the server); and
500 (Internal server error)
Other standard HTTP status codes may be used on bilateral agreement between (prospective) Licensee and (prospective) Licensor.
If the HTTP status codes is 200, the web server shall also return to the calling web service client an XML document containing a valid LicenseMessage.
When used in an asymmetric choreography, a HTTP status code of 202 indicates that the Licensor's Web Service will, in due course, be able to communicate a licence via an Atom feed to the Licensee.
Note: the LicenseMessage can communicate both granted licences as well as rejected licences.
5.3.8.2 POST License
This command can be used by a Licensor to provide a licence or a licence revocation to a Licensee.
The Licensor will call, after appropriate authentication if needed, the Web Service address previously agreed between Licensor and Licensee with a LicenseMessage or a LicenseRevocationMessage.
The Web Service shall return one of the following standard HTTP status codes with their standard HTTP response code semantics:
Other standard HTTP status codes may be used on bilateral agreement between Licensor and Licensee.
5.3.8.3 GET LicenseList
This command can be used by a (prospective) Licensee to request a list of licenses (and licence revocations) from a (prospective) Licensor.
The (prospective) Licensee will call, after appropriate authentication if needed, the Web Service address previously agreed between (prospective) Licensee and (prospective) Licensor.
5.3.8.3.2 Parameters
In order to allow the web service caller to request a specific list of items to be returned in response to this call, the web server shall support the following query syntax defined in RfC 3986. It is permissible to communicate multiple queries separated by ampersands (&). If multiple queries are provided they shall be deemed to be logically AND-combined.
from: Get items older than this time stamp (inclusive). The time stamp shall be provided in ISO 8601 format (yyyy-mm-dd);
to: Get items newer than this time stamp (inclusive). The time stamp shall be provided in 8601 format (yyyy-mm-dd);
offset: Offset into list of the first item to return; and
limit: Maximum number of items to return. If the limit is set to 0 it means "all" items.
The example below requests an Atom feed containing 10 entries starting from the 100th item generated in January 2016:
GET https://www.example.com/base/url?from=2016-01-01&to=2016-01-31&offset=100&limit=10
Other query formats may be used on bilateral agreement between (prospective) Licensee and (prospective) Licensor.
The GET LicenseList command may also be used without any parameters. In that case the web server will decide the items to send in the Atom feed.
406 (Not Acceptable query);
414 (Request-URI Too Long);
The web server shall also return to the calling web service client an Atom feed document that meets any parameters (if provided) as defined elsewhere in this standard.
5.3.8.4 GET License
This command can be used by a (prospective) Licensee to request a licence or licence renovation from a (prospective) Licensor.
The (prospective) Licensee will call, after appropriate authentication if needed, a Web Service address provided in response to a GET LicenseList call.
If the HTTP status codes is 200, the Web Service shall also return to the calling web service client an XML document containing a valid LicenseMessage or LicenseRevocationMessage.
6 Message Definition
The hierarchical structure of the messages is provided through indentation in the tables below. In addition to the tabular description of the message, which should always be read in conjunction with Annex A, additional conformance rules, which go beyond XML Schema validation, are provided where necessary. The general conformance rules for all messages within this Standard are provided in Clause 6.2.
Specific business processes between sender and recipient may require even further conformance rules. These are, however, not part of the Standard and will need to be agreed by the business partners.
6.2 General Conformance Rules
6.2.1 Schema Validation
A message is conformant to this specification only when it validates against the set of XML Schema files provided.
6.2.2 Namespace
The full namespace for the XML Schema document for this Standard is
http://ddex.net/xml/mc-us-lic/101
All messages developed within DDEX are based upon a common set of elements and their definitions. These are contained in the DDEX Data Dictionary available from ddex.net.
6.2.3 Allowed Value Lists
All messages defined in this standard make intensive use of allowed-value sets. These allowed value sets are shared between all DDEX standards and DDEX provides an XML Schema Definition file for all of these allowed values. These values are also contained in the DDEX Data Dictionary available from kb.ddex.net.
http://ddex.net/xml/avs/avs
The full namespace for the XML Schema document for the allowed-value sets is:
DDEX may regularly extend this list of allowed-value sets. Any such extensions to this list issued on a date later than the date on which this standard is issued form part of this standard. This clause contains the list of allowed-value sets valid on the date of issuance of this standard.
6.2.4 Contractually Mandatory
The messages defined in this standard contain fields with cardinality "0-1" or "0-n". Therefore these fields are from the standard's point of view, optional. Such fields may, however, be mandatory when a DDEX message is sent in a specific commercial context.
In such circumstances, a message is deemed conformant only if and when it contains all the "contractually mandatory" fields as agreed by MessageSender and MessageRecipient.
6.2.5 Character Coding
All messages shall be sent in UTF-8.
6.3 Definition of Messages
The tabular rendering of the messages is provided in a separate document. See the red box here.
6.4 Allowed Value Sets
The table below lists all allowed value sets with their allowed values and definitions that are valid within this standard. Note, the allowed-value sets are maintained outside of this standard and DDEX may add to the list below.
The Table of AVSs is provided in a separate document. See the red box here.
Evaluation Licence for DDEX Standards
Subject to your compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, DDEX™ grants you a limited, nonexclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicenseable, royalty-free licence solely to reproduce, distribute within your organisation, and use the DDEX standard specifications ("DDEX Standards") solely for the purpose of your internal evaluation. You may not make any commercial use of the DDEX Standards under this agreement. No other licences are granted under this agreement.
No representations or warranties (either express or implied) are made or offered by DDEX with regard to the DDEX Standards. In particular, but without limitation, no representations or warranties are made in relation to:
The suitability or fitness of the standards for any particular purpose;
The merchantability of the standards;
The accuracy, completeness, relevance or validity of the standards; or
The non-infringement of any third party intellectual property rights related to the DDEX Standards.
Accordingly, DDEX and/or its members shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, special, consequential or punitive loss or damages howsoever arising out of or in connection with the use of the standards. IN THE EVENT THAT ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION RENDERS JUDGEMENT AGAINST DDEX AND/OR ITS MEMBERS NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE LIMITATION, THE AGGREGATE LIABILITY TO YOU IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT SHALL IN NO EVENT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED U.S. DOLLARS (US$ 100.00).
Users of the DDEX Standards are cautioned that it is subject to revision. Users are recommended to use the latest versions, which are available at http://www.ddex.net. The use of outdated versions of the standards is not recommended but may be required by agreement between implementers in particular cases.
6 Child Pages
Page: 1 Introduction Page: 2 Scope Page: 3 Normative References Page: 4 Terms and Abbreviations Page: 5 Musical Work Licensing Choreography for the US Market Page: 6 Syntax & Semantics of Messages
(c) DDEX
{"serverDuration": 3235, "requestCorrelationId": "faffb2f3a7dd7000"}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Calibration compliant with the DICOM Part 14 standard. Superior cost performance monitor featuring widescreen format with 16:10 aspect ratio gives you more horizontal space.
The RadiForce MX270W features a 27-inch large screen size and a 2560 x 1440 high-resolution which are ideal for displaying multiple imaging applications or windows to improve the work efficiency of physicians and radiologists.
Featuring high definition, high resolution and multi-grayscale, this 5 megapixel monochrome monitor is designed specifically for displaying digital mammography images.
With its widescreen format, the GX1030 is an optimal replacement for traditional dual head 5MP display installations. The consistent color point and bezel-less configuration of a single monitor serve to reduce eye fatigue for the radiologist while lowering the administrative and QA costs for the operator. With the unobstructed viewing space, applications can offer greater hanging protocol flexibility for richer comparisons between past and present images.


text:
Positive semantics of projections in Venn-Euler diagrams
Joseph (Yossi) Gil, John Howse, Elena Tulchinsky
Venn diagrams and Euler circles have long been used as a means of expressing relationships among sets using visual metaphors such as 'disjointness' and 'containment' of topological contours. Although the notation is effective in delivering a clear visual representation of set theoretical relationships, it does not scale well. The topology of Venn diagrams of four or more contours is so cluttered that it becomes impractical to use it to visualize set relationships. In this work, we study 'projection contours', a new means for presenting sets intersections, which is designed to reduce the clutter in such diagrams. Informally, a projected contour is a contour which describes a set of elements limited to a certain context. The challenge in introducing this notation is in producing precise and consistent semantics for the general case, including a diagram comprising several, possibly interacting projections, which might even be of the same base set. The semantics investigated here assigns a 'positive' meaning to a projection, i.e. based on the list of contours with which it interacts, where contours disjoint to it do not change its semantics. This semantics is produced by a novel Gaussian-like elimination process for solving set equations. In dealing with multiple projections of the same base set, we introduce yet another extension to Venn–Euler diagrams in which the same set can be described by multiple contours. This extension is of independent interest as a powerful means for reducing the clutter in Venn–Euler diagrams.
Journal of Visual Languages and Computing
https://doi.org/10.1006/jvlc.2000.0199
Visual formalism
Diagrammatic notations.
10.1006/jvlc.2000.0199Licence: Unspecified
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045926X0090199XLicence: Unspecified
Dive into the research topics of 'Positive semantics of projections in Venn-Euler diagrams'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
Semantics Engineering & Materials Science 100%
Topology Engineering & Materials Science 24%
Gil, J., Howse, J., & Tulchinsky, E. (2002). Positive semantics of projections in Venn-Euler diagrams. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 13(2), 197-227. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvlc.2000.0199
Gil, Joseph (Yossi) ; Howse, John ; Tulchinsky, Elena. / Positive semantics of projections in Venn-Euler diagrams. In: Journal of Visual Languages and Computing. 2002 ; Vol. 13, No. 2. pp. 197-227.
@article{5a07c6c68d62469d875ad745048eb6f1,
title = "Positive semantics of projections in Venn-Euler diagrams",
abstract = "Venn diagrams and Euler circles have long been used as a means of expressing relationships among sets using visual metaphors such as {\textquoteleft}disjointness{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}containment{\textquoteright} of topological contours. Although the notation is effective in delivering a clear visual representation of set theoretical relationships, it does not scale well. The topology of Venn diagrams of four or more contours is so cluttered that it becomes impractical to use it to visualize set relationships. In this work, we study {\textquoteleft}projection contours{\textquoteright}, a new means for presenting sets intersections, which is designed to reduce the clutter in such diagrams. Informally, a projected contour is a contour which describes a set of elements limited to a certain context. The challenge in introducing this notation is in producing precise and consistent semantics for the general case, including a diagram comprising several, possibly interacting projections, which might even be of the same base set. The semantics investigated here assigns a {\textquoteleft}positive{\textquoteright} meaning to a projection, i.e. based on the list of contours with which it interacts, where contours disjoint to it do not change its semantics. This semantics is produced by a novel Gaussian-like elimination process for solving set equations. In dealing with multiple projections of the same base set, we introduce yet another extension to Venn–Euler diagrams in which the same set can be described by multiple contours. This extension is of independent interest as a powerful means for reducing the clutter in Venn–Euler diagrams.",
keywords = "Visual formalism, Diagrammatic notations.",
author = "Gil, {Joseph (Yossi)} and John Howse and Elena Tulchinsky",
doi = "10.1006/jvlc.2000.0199",
journal = "Journal of Visual Languages and Computing",
Gil, J, Howse, J & Tulchinsky, E 2002, 'Positive semantics of projections in Venn-Euler diagrams', Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 197-227. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvlc.2000.0199
Positive semantics of projections in Venn-Euler diagrams. / Gil, Joseph (Yossi); Howse, John; Tulchinsky, Elena.
In: Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, Vol. 13, No. 2, 01.04.2002, p. 197-227.
T1 - Positive semantics of projections in Venn-Euler diagrams
AU - Gil, Joseph (Yossi)
AU - Howse, John
AU - Tulchinsky, Elena
N2 - Venn diagrams and Euler circles have long been used as a means of expressing relationships among sets using visual metaphors such as 'disjointness' and 'containment' of topological contours. Although the notation is effective in delivering a clear visual representation of set theoretical relationships, it does not scale well. The topology of Venn diagrams of four or more contours is so cluttered that it becomes impractical to use it to visualize set relationships. In this work, we study 'projection contours', a new means for presenting sets intersections, which is designed to reduce the clutter in such diagrams. Informally, a projected contour is a contour which describes a set of elements limited to a certain context. The challenge in introducing this notation is in producing precise and consistent semantics for the general case, including a diagram comprising several, possibly interacting projections, which might even be of the same base set. The semantics investigated here assigns a 'positive' meaning to a projection, i.e. based on the list of contours with which it interacts, where contours disjoint to it do not change its semantics. This semantics is produced by a novel Gaussian-like elimination process for solving set equations. In dealing with multiple projections of the same base set, we introduce yet another extension to Venn–Euler diagrams in which the same set can be described by multiple contours. This extension is of independent interest as a powerful means for reducing the clutter in Venn–Euler diagrams.
AB - Venn diagrams and Euler circles have long been used as a means of expressing relationships among sets using visual metaphors such as 'disjointness' and 'containment' of topological contours. Although the notation is effective in delivering a clear visual representation of set theoretical relationships, it does not scale well. The topology of Venn diagrams of four or more contours is so cluttered that it becomes impractical to use it to visualize set relationships. In this work, we study 'projection contours', a new means for presenting sets intersections, which is designed to reduce the clutter in such diagrams. Informally, a projected contour is a contour which describes a set of elements limited to a certain context. The challenge in introducing this notation is in producing precise and consistent semantics for the general case, including a diagram comprising several, possibly interacting projections, which might even be of the same base set. The semantics investigated here assigns a 'positive' meaning to a projection, i.e. based on the list of contours with which it interacts, where contours disjoint to it do not change its semantics. This semantics is produced by a novel Gaussian-like elimination process for solving set equations. In dealing with multiple projections of the same base set, we introduce yet another extension to Venn–Euler diagrams in which the same set can be described by multiple contours. This extension is of independent interest as a powerful means for reducing the clutter in Venn–Euler diagrams.
KW - Visual formalism
KW - Diagrammatic notations.
U2 - 10.1006/jvlc.2000.0199
DO - 10.1006/jvlc.2000.0199
JO - Journal of Visual Languages and Computing
JF - Journal of Visual Languages and Computing
Gil J, Howse J, Tulchinsky E. Positive semantics of projections in Venn-Euler diagrams. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing. 2002 Apr 1;13(2):197-227. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvlc.2000.0199


Handmade Glass Plate for Mom!
Stop by Garage Door Studio on Saturday, April 30th, 11 am – 2 pm for the perfect mother's day gift-making a handmade creation for mom! Join glass artisan Brenda Griffith of Siyeh Glass to make a 6″ square fused glass plate. Only $18 per plate. You're welcome to make one or more gifts-it's your choice!
Brenda will provide a variety of colors of glass in all shapes and sizes to build your very own unique design. Plates will be fired offsite, and your creation will be available for pickup on or after Thursday, May 5th, just in time for Mother's Day on May 8th! Adults and kids are welcome to create.
Plates take 10-30 minutes to complete depending on amount of detail. This project is appropriate for ages 4+, but ages 10 and under must be accompanied by an adult.