W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-comments@w3.org > April 2013

Feedback on ORG and DataCube

From: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 09:35:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CAC_nr_pf2LGWfEnarfhKtjv-sozuQ=TTGj+V617--WLy3ZqwTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-gld-comments@w3.org
Hi,

I'm writing to provide some feedback on the ORG and DataCube
vocabularies. My feedback doesn't include any substantive comments on
the design of either specification, but rather I wanted to note that
I've successfully provided both specifications in several projects.
Testing the vocabularies using real-world data helps identify any
short-falls in the design and I'm happy to say that I've not yet found
any.

* Firstly I applied ORG to describe the structure of the NHS, using
the data available from the NHS ODS service [1]. The ORG vocabulary
provided a good backbone for describing the hierarchical structure of
the organisation and the various sites associated with the health care
providers.

* Secondly, I've experimented with converting NHS performance
statistics into the DataCube vocabulary. The mapping from a tabular
open data release to the DataCube vocabulary was fairly natural. As
expected I only needed additional terms to describe dimensions,
attributes, etc.

* Finally I've also use the DataCube vocabulary as part of a piece of
work for the DOPA EU project [2] (I don't think this is public just
yet. Here I used DataCube to define how to surface Linked Data from a
statistical data platform.

In all cases both vocabularies provided a good backbone for capturing
the base data.

Cheers,

L.

[1]. http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/systemsandservices/data/ods
[2]. http://www.dopa-project.eu/index.php

--
Leigh Dodds
Freelance Technologist
Open Data, Linked Data Geek
t: @ldodds
w: ldodds.com
e: leigh@ldodds.com
Received on Friday, 5 April 2013 08:35:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 5 April 2013 08:35:32 UTC