InC-Lib-Vendor

[Ann West <>]

Excellent points, Kent. Using this survey as a subtle pitch for who is 
already a participant as well as asking about potential members is a great 
idea.

-A


----- "Kent Percival" <> wrote:

> 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
> > >>

-- 
Ann West, Sr. Program Manager 
Internet2/InCommon/Michigan Tech 
 
 
office: +1.906.487.1726