InC-Lib-Vendor

["Kent Percival" <>]

Dean,
Sorry for the late comments.  Although we may have a targeted audience for 
the 
survey, it could be viewed by a larger audience not as familiar with the 
project's 
framework.  Looking at it this way, I find it a little strange that some  
"Big" 
vendors aren't on the list of UK service providers.

From the point of view of statement 2 in the survey header, should we not 
have all 
the vendors including Elsevier (Scopus, Web of Science), JStor and OCLC on 
the 
list too?  This would let respondents indicate who their primary providers 
are, 
including the ones already in InCommon.

Alternatively the header should indicate that this is a partial list of 
providers - those not subscribed to the US federation InCommon.


....Kent
 _

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Woodbeck []
> Sent: November 13, 2009 16:42
> To: 
> Subject: Re: [InC-Lib-Vendor] Survey on shibbolized UK vendors
>
> OK -- I've incorporated the changes (I think I got them all). I made all
> of the questions required. Let me know of any changes/additions/corrections.
>
> http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=wGlEYsyiVnJgw01abx28xQ_3d_3d
> Thanks,
>
> Dean
>
> Andy Ingham wrote:
> > Yes, that's a nuance I didn't appreciate.  Question 3 would ALWAYS be
> > presented (wouldn't be conditional on 2) and some rewording would be
> > needed.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > Ann West wrote:
> >> Andy,
> >>
> >> One comment below:
> >>
> >>>>> Do we care if several people from an institution complete the
> >>>>> survey and possibly provide conflicting answers?
> >>>> I think we do care. I would think we would want only one response
> >>>> per institution. Not sure how we police that, other than stating so
> >>>> in the email that we'll send out, as well as in the survey intro text.
> >>> I'M NOT SURE IF DISAGREEMENT AT THIS STAGE OR IN THIS CONTEXT IS A
> >>> BAD THING.  SINCE THE RESULTS ARE RELATIVELY "PRIVATE" (THEY ARE,
> >>> AREN'T THEY?), CONFLICTING ANSWERS AT LEAST PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY
> >>> FOR FOLKS AT A GIVEN CAMPUS TO DISCUSS LOCALLY AMONGST
> THEMSELVES
> >>> (PRESUMABLY, THE UPSIDE IS THAT WE'D KNOW AT LEAST WHO NEEDS TO
> TALK
> >>> TO WHOM!)
> >>
> >> Then we should ask for a contact name as a requirement so we know who
> >> to connect with whom?
> >>
> >> Ann
> >>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature