Re: Trial version of the questionnaire

Martin Dzbor wrote:
> One, maybe a bit late, suggestion for extending Q 6...  Would it be
> interesting to ask:
> 
> 6A:   How/where does your org. use SW?     =   we have this one now
> 
> followed by
> 
> 6B:   If you checked research, pilot or production in Q6A, could you
> identify the source(s) of funding?
>        (  )   don't know / don't want to answer
>        (  )   public funds (e.g. NSF, EC)
>        (  )   internal resources
>        (  )   other external investment (e.g. private equity)
>        (  )   other (pls. specify)
> 

To be honest, I am not sure. The funding issue, though clearly
important, is not really the focus of this questionnaire.

Others may feel differently...

> 
> 
> Then, in Q11 we use phrase "standard committee rep" -- do we mean
> "standards" in general? Maybe this one could be re-worded to make it
> clearer, e.g. "QA / standards dept."? Something similar for "architect",
> making it "system architect" or "software architect"? But these are just
> minor and probably unimportant tweakings...
> 

I think we do mean standards in term of a person at the company whose
(partial) job is to follow what happens in the various standardization
committees (ISO, Oasis, W3C, IETF, etc). At least this is the I
understand the question...

I like your proposal on changing 'architect' to 'software architect'. I
have done that.


> And one observation re point, which is probably beyond ours and Ivan's
> control -- the question headings do not wrap, but the actual choices do
> adjust to the screen size, which makes some questions nicely "boxed" and
> others look "open/unboxed" (e.g. 5, 11)... at least in Mozilla
> 
> 

As you say, it is beyond my control... but I will forward your comment
to the person who has. It is a good comment...

Thanks Martin

Ivan

> Best,
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
> To: "Susie Stephens" <susie.stephens@oracle.com>
> Cc: "W3C SWEO IG" <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>; "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
> Sent: 19 December 2006 09:47
> Subject: Re: Trial version of the questionnaire
> 
> I have made all pending changes (commented below). I have also
> re-numbered the questions (remember that yesterday I split question #8
> to #8a and #8b to avoid confusions while we had pending issues).
> 
> I am not aware of any pending issues at the moment. But the floor is
> still open until tomorrow's meeting:-)
> 
> Thanks to all
> 
> Ivan
> 
> Susie Stephens wrote:
> 
>>>Lee:
>>>
>>>Question 10: I don't understand this question as worded. Why do we care
>>> about the survey taker's opinion on this vis a vis the actual nature of
>>> who the decision markers / influencers are?
>>>
>>
>>The goal of the question is to get a better understanding as to who
>>exactly the decision makers / influencers are. That way we can tailor
>>our collateral to the key people. Lee: Does this answer your question?
>>
> 
> 
> In a subsequent mail Lee agreed that the answer possibilities were not
> really appropriate and the question was o.k. I have deleted the 'old'
> ranking widget and replaced it with the 'importance' widget. This may
> solve the issue.
> 
> 
> 
>>>Danny:
>>>
>>>"4. Are you familiar with the use of Semantic Web technologies in the
>>>following areas"
>>>I didn't understand what was intended by the option
>>>Regulation/compliance - interpretations could perhaps be network access
>>>control; quality control; XML validation...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Perhaps we should change the description to 'Compliance, Governance and
>>Audit'. There are increasing business pressures around the traceability
>>and verifiability of data movement and data relationships. The Semantic
>>Web provides benefits in this area because it provide an approach that
>>is flexible, precise, repeatable, and intelligent.
>>
> 
> 
> I have changed the entry to what you propose. I have also changed
> question #5 where the same term was used.
> 
> 
> 
>>>"9. How do customers perceive your usage of Semantic Web technologies?"
>>>could be tricky for non customer-facing respondees.
>>>
>>
>>We thought this question would work for vendors, and also for IT people
>>who consider the business people within their company to be customers.
>>Danny: Should we add an 'If applicable' at the beginning?
>>
> 
> 
> I was a bit more verbose and I added the following to the question:
> 
> <p>(If you are not at a customer related organization, for example a
> research institution, you can skip this question.)</p>
> 
> 
>>>"10. Which individuals in your organization are most likely to make
>>>decisions about whether to use Semantic Web technologies?"
>>> - is totally confusing (I skipped, and on looking back I realise I'd
>>>inadvertently skipped 11 as well)
>>>
>>
>>Ivan has changed the ranking for this question, so hopefully that helps.
>>
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
>>>Ivan
> 
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf