InC-Lib-Vendor

[Andy Ingham <>]

Carolina has Safari Books, so I second Dave's instinct...

http://eresources.lib.unc.edu/eid/description.php?resourceID=893&passthrough=no

Andy

David Kennedy wrote:
> 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