Re: Trial version of the questionnaire

+1

Ivan Herman wrote:
> 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
>>>>         
>>
>>     
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 15:56:56 UTC