InC-Lib-Vendor

["Kent Percival" <>]

Dean,

Your #5 already captured the idea..

My apology - after being off ill for a week, I'm rushing too much to catch up - forgot to pagedown.  L

 

....Kent

 _

 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Dean Woodbeck [mailto:]

> Sent: November 17, 2009 15:26

> To: Kent Percival;

> Subject: Re: [InC-Lib-Vendor] Survey on shibbolized UK vendors

>

>

>

> 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 [mailto:]

> >

> >  > 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 [mailto:]

> >

> >  > >> 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

> >

> >  > >>>>

> >

> >  >

> >

> >  >

> >

> >

> >

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature