Contracts are definitely good candidates for data. It brings up a basic question for me:
- How do we know that ‘TableFlip’ here is the same as ‘tableflip’ that appears in some other dataset, which may well have been developed independently of this contract data?
I realise that your example was given as a sketch; I am taking this as an opportunity to mention something that I feel is important and fundamental. I make no apologies for using this as an opportunity to say more about Linked Data (you may notice a pattern in my posts!)
If we were modelling this using Linked Data, then instead of the string ‘TableFlip’, we’d have something like
This is a URI (Uniform Resource Identifier). It is globally unique. Although it looks like a URL, it is just a string that identifies the thing ‘TableFlip’. CoTech has the right to ‘mint’ URIs in its domain. If it is a well-behaved URI, then it will also be dereferenceable - i.e you can get a useful response when you GET it over HTTP: a human-readable response if a web browser asks for HTML, and machine-readable response (e.g. JSON, and many other formats) if a computer program asks for machine-readable response.
By inserting this URI into our data, as opposed to the string ‘TableFlip’, programs that use this data can ‘follow the links’ to other information about TableFlip, which may also be presented as links … to yet more information. In this way, a Web of Data is created.
It is also possible that the best source of Linked Data about TableFlip actually is available through a different URI. For example
In that case, we’d have Linked Data that declares that both URIs refer to the same thing. Things can have more than one name (identifier).
Yes. A couple of threads, at least! I’ve suggested that a category for Data or Data & Mapping is created: Forum Categories . Although it may be that we have to create new threads before that will happen.
Yes. The question about investment is pretty crucial. In espousing the virtues of using Linked Data, I’m also aware that there’s a learning overhead, and more time is required to put something in place that is intended for general use, rather than for the use of a single application. I’m certainly right behind the idea of an open data commons, as a key infrastructure layer to support digital tools for the Solidarity Economy, and can invest some time to this end.