Hi Dominic, I agree with the relevance of the effort, and wouldn't argue against centralizing. Not everyone will have the resource to search in a decentralized fashion...
What worries me a bit is how to learn lessons for the past. As you (or someone else) has pointed, there have been previous attempts in the past. For example http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/ I don't find the cases there super-technical. And is it really from the past? Looking closer, it seems still open for contribution: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/submit.html Actually I have submitted a case there way after the SWEO group was closed: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/Europeana/ Now why do these things seem obsolete to newcomers? Just giving some account on what I've been involved in ... [Note: I'm sorry if sometimes it's going to read a bit as a rant. It's not intended, just trying honestly to reflect the situation ;-) It's also not purely about your case/requirement situation, but I believe the issues are very similar!] [Perspective from the case providers] It's hard to know where to contribute. Existing don't often come in the places where case owners are, or it's hard to tell whether they're still open. And there's always a fresher initiative (like the one you're trying to launch) which seems a good place. In fact I have actually created some updated description of the Europeana case http://lodlam.net/2013/06/18/what-is-europeana-doing-with-sw-and-lod/ But because the LODLAM summit was a more actual forum for me recently, I've posted it there. And failed thinking of updating the SWEO list, mea maxima culpa. [Perspective from the case gatherers] I have actually be involved as 'initiator' of a couple of listing. 1. SKOS datasets (which are a kind of 'case for SKOS') We started with a web page: http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/data but as the list was difficult to maintain we soon created a community-writable wiki: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/SKOS/Datasets As it seemed not modern enough, we've then encouraged people to use the same DataHub platform as the LOD cloud: http://datahub.io/dataset?q=format-skos But both are not very active. And they contain a lot of dead links... 2. Library-related datasets: http://datahub.io/dataset?groups=lld That list, started by the Library Linked Data W3C incubator, went alright as long as the group was running. Now I think the rate of new datasets is really small, even though I *know* there are many new ones. Both as SKOS community manager and former LLD co-chair, I've tried to actively mail people to create descriptions of their stuff. But it requires time. Most often they assume *you* would do it! And after a while, the supporters of such effort just have other things to do and can't afford very high level of commitment. What should we do if we want to build on existing lists and not re-invent the wheel every six months or so? Or is it worth sending a regular (monthly?) reminder to lists like public-lod, reminding everyone that these lists are available and open for contributions? Create a list of lists, as Wikipedia does? Best, Antoine
There may be a number of reasons for creating a central list and I am sure there are others. In this case I wasn't suggesting it as a bureaucratic and technical exercise. My reason for suggesting it was for the following. 1. It is a chance to celebrate and highlight progress in making RDF and linked data mainstream and available to general users of the Web. 2. It shows that we are not just focused on highly technical and very detailed definitions but on the ultimate outcomes of the great work that we all do. 3. It gives us a chance to discuss some of the real difficulties that we have moving from manipulating and processing RDF creating sustainable and generally beneficial applications and to help each other in this endeavour. 4. It provides an opportunity to show that we are a forward looking and positive group with a real vision for linked data. 5. It shows that we are a serious and professional group made up of experts. i.e. We have some requirements -> We think they could be only achieved with linked data ->, this is what we are doing and where we are -> it shows there is a real need for linked data within this sector -> it shows there is a real need to linked data applications generally -> I could do with some constructive advice on how to go about achieving it from the public LOD group -> The public LOD group is a primary source of constructive advice on delivering linked data outcomes ...... That's all. How about it? Dominic
