Hi Kingsley, Great survey! Can we find out what people said in the "Other" field. It could be very interesting. Thanks for setting up this survey:)
@Alvaro Graves,Can I sum up your comments as follows:The value proposition of Linked Data is mercurial and as a result folks will ultimately find its utility mercurial?Put differently, I think you are saying that the usefulness of Linked Data is unclear. Am I correct?
@pudo : I don't fully understand your point here. Are you saying that RDF, RDF Schema, and OWL semantics are the problem?
@Pudo put a finger on it precisely.
The tasty bits of linked data (e.g. resolvable uris as identifiers, some sense of schemas) have been adopted by the web community through REST and similar initiatives, so now you're stuck trying to sell the nerdy academic bits like ontologies and RDF as a specific representation form (i.e. killing your domain model in favor of triples). While this certainly has immense value in some areas, there just isn't enough attraction on it any more (esp. wrt/ interoperability) for it to become web best practice for the wider net.
I think there are four main issues that makes difficult the adoption- "Understanding What Its Actually About"- What is the value of doing Linked Data?- How can someone (not a semantic web expert) consume such data- How can someone (not a semantic web expert) produce/publish such dataIf nobody will ever be able or will find useful to dereference my URIs and use the information provided, it is hard to make a case for LD.
Note: this poll has the option to add alternative answers should the defaults not suffice.