- From: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 09:35:00 +0100
- 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