@Marcus-DigiCoproduct thanks for sharing this, it’s very exciting stuff.
I’m glad to see more folks recognizing the limitations of search as a mode of information navigation; if I’m reading correctly, you’re recommending use cases that might involve screening (in which people answer questions and their answers trigger recommendations/suggestions), which I think is one of the areas of most potential benefit from better-structured resource data. I don’t assume, however, that this eliminates the need for a use case of searching a directory; presumably both searching and screening are useful modes of navigation, and communities might want to promote one or another or both methods depending on the context.
Also, I wanted to check an assumption about this statement: “The ultimate aim is that the providers of the services will maintain their own data.” In our context, usually we frame the ultimate aim as being: this information should be reliable. And what we’ve found (at least in the US) is that organizations are just not now and maybe never will be reliable sources of information about their own services. At least not at scale. Too many complicating factors and perverse incentives. Which isn’t to say that we shouldn’t encourage organizations to play a role in providing reliable information – but that we need to have intermediary capacities in place to verify the information one way or another for it to be reliable. I see you establish that such capacities ought to be in place for some services; I’d encourage you to consider whether it might actually be feasible and appropriate to assume that information verification is actually an essential service for all services as a best practice. This does involve labor, but in the scale of things, perhaps it’s better to make the case for the investment of resources to perform that labor.
I think there’s plenty else I’d love to discuss, maybe at the upcoming network convening, or otherwise.
Thanks again for sharing!
greg