> Well Dominic's site is definitely not isolated.
> It is very well linked at the ontology level, not instance, however.
> I thought his question was timely, since TimBL asked the question at the panel at LOD2012 as to whether the criteria for inclusion in the LOD Cloud should be changed.
Yep. As far as I'm concerned, something like a sort of mix between the LOD cloud and the LOV one (http://labs.mondeca.com/dataset/lov/
) would be really interesting.
But still someone needs to volunteer (as opposed to "being requested") to do it :-)
> Personally I think it is a shame that such a resource should lose a lot of its visibility because it does not pass the rules.
> And I think that putting links in simply to get into the Cloud is not something that should be encouraged - links should be put in because they are sensible.
> Without visibility, others (such as you!) will be less aware of it and so not build the links that would actually bring it into the cloud without Dominic doing anything (as you are now thinking of doing, since Dominic has made you more aware of it).
Yep. In fact this is part of the reasons why the Library Linked Data incubator decided to create its own group on The Data Hub (http://thedatahub.org/group/lld
). It helped us to make the datasets from our community more visible to our community, without making it a hard pre-requisite to adhere to other communities' requirements.
Some nodes (or group of nodes) at
are indeed "isolated", in the LOD cloud sense.