InC-Lib-Vendor

[Dean Woodbeck <>]

I have changed the survey to, hopefully, accomplish what Kent has 
suggested. Please take a look and let me know if I've succeeded.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=wGlEYsyiVnJgw01abx28xQ_3d_3d

You'll see this iteration includes a list of library resource providers 
that are members of InCommon. If you would double check the participants 
list to make sure I didn't miss one (I see Safari Books, but am not 
clear if they are a library provider). 
http://www.incommonfederation.org/participants/

Dean

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