InC-Lib-Vendor

[David Kennedy <>]

Dean,

The survey looks good.

EBSCO is also an InCommon participant. 

Regarding Safari Books, Duke doesn't have a subscription, I don't think. 
But while I was at MD, the library managed the subscription contract.  I'm 
guessing it should be on this list.

Dave

-----
David Kennedy
Application Developer
Perkins Library, Duke University
(919) 613-6831




From:
Dean Woodbeck <>
To:

Date:
11/16/2009 09:52 AM
Subject:
Re: [InC-Lib-Vendor] Survey on shibbolized UK vendors



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
>>>>