Harry @harry that's great to hear that format is less important to people, one less thing to worry about... does that mean that, in your experience, the data is easy to transform from one format to another? I expect it is, if it follows any established linked data format, ultimately resolvable into triples / quads...
But thanks to your drawing attention to it, I think I didn't express myself clearly. I'm absolutely not worried about matters like e.g. JSON-LD v. Turtle. So I'll edit my post to replace the word "formats", as I can see that means something I didn't intend. In my (interoperability/portability) experience, what matters is the underlying -- well, I can't think of a better word than "ontology", though that's not everyone's favourite word. (Goodness me, the Ontology Outreach Advisory is 10 years old already, where did that time go?)
OK, let's get beneath the word "ontology". I guess we share the recognition that having different data sets with similar, but different, and overlapping meanings can play havoc with interoperability or portability, and indeed the very linking of the data. Or don't you think so?
What I mean is, can we agree on what our data represents, before trying to link it? That's the essence of ontology, to me. If we are mapping co-ops and their relationships, it's to say the least useful if we agree on what a co-op is, what properties and relationships they may have, etc. etc. Or, again, do you have a deeper view than this?