InC-Lib-Vendor

[Dean Woodbeck <>]

Kent Percival wrote:

<snip>
> Final blue-sky question:  Should we include a general data collection 
> question such as  “/Are there other publisher resources that you would 
> like to see added to the list for a future phase?/”

Question #5 is this:
5. Are there library resource providers that do not appear on either 
list above that you think would be a good candidates for federating? If 
so, please list below.

Seems like this question and the one you posed above are trying to get 
at the same thing? If you agree, I'll substitute the text you proposed 
for #5.

Dean

>  
>
> /....Kent/
>
>  _
>
>  
>
>  > -----Original Message-----
>
>  > From: David Kennedy []
>
>  > Sent: November 16, 2009 14:47
>
>  > To: Dean Woodbeck
>
>  > Cc: 
>
>  > Subject: Re: [InC-Lib-Vendor] Survey on shibbolized UK vendors
>
>  >
>
>  > 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
>
>  > >>>>
>
>  >
>
>  >
>
>