Evaluation results
There are three levels of importance in pitfalls according to
their impact on the ontology:
- Critical It is crucial to correct the pitfall. Otherwise, it could affect the ontology consistency, reasoning, applicability, etc.
- Important Though not critical for ontology function, it is important to correct this type of pitfall.
- Minor It is not really a problem, but by correcting it we will make the ontology nicer.
Pitfalls detected:
This pitfall consists in creating an ontology element and failing to provide human readable annotations attached to it. Consequently, ontology elements lack annotation properties that label them (e.g. rdfs:label, lemon:LexicalEntry, skos:prefLabel or skos:altLabel) or that define them (e.g. rdfs:comment or dc:description). This pitfall is related to the guidelines provided in [5].
• The following elements have neither rdfs:comment or skos:definition defined:
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#Software
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#sandboxURL
• The following elements have neither rdfs:comment or skos:definition defined:
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#Software
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#sandboxURL
Object and/or datatype properties without domain or range (or none of them) are included in the ontology.
• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#inputFileTypes
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#dependencyManager
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#modelingTechnology
› http://dbpedia.org/ontology/programmingLanguage
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#uiTechnology
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#softwareType
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#outputFileTypes
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#features
• Tip: Solving this pitfall may lead to new results for other pitfalls and suggestions. We encourage you to solve all cases when needed and see what else you can get from OOPS!
• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#inputFileTypes
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#dependencyManager
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#modelingTechnology
› http://dbpedia.org/ontology/programmingLanguage
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#uiTechnology
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#softwareType
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#outputFileTypes
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#features
• Tip: Solving this pitfall may lead to new results for other pitfalls and suggestions. We encourage you to solve all cases when needed and see what else you can get from OOPS!
This pitfall appears when any relationship (except for those that are defined as symmetric properties using owl:SymmetricProperty) does not have an inverse relationship (owl:inverseOf) defined within the ontology.
• OOPS! has the following suggestions for the relationships without inverse:
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#isPluginOf could be inverse of http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#hasDependency
• Sorry, OOPS! has no suggestions for the following relationships without inverse:
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#features
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#outputFileTypes
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#powersWebSite
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#softwareType
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#uiTechnology
› http://dbpedia.org/ontology/programmingLanguage
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#modelingTechnology
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#dependencyManager
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#sandboxURL
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#inputFileTypes
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#dataSource
• OOPS! has the following suggestions for the relationships without inverse:
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#isPluginOf could be inverse of http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#hasDependency
• Sorry, OOPS! has no suggestions for the following relationships without inverse:
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#features
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#outputFileTypes
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#powersWebSite
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#softwareType
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#uiTechnology
› http://dbpedia.org/ontology/programmingLanguage
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#modelingTechnology
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#dependencyManager
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#sandboxURL
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#inputFileTypes
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#dataSource
The domain or range (or both) of a property (relationships and attributes) is defined by stating more than one rdfs:domain or rdfs:range statements. In OWL multiple rdfs:domain or rdfs:range axioms are allowed, but they are interpreted as conjunction, being, therefore, equivalent to the construct owl:intersectionOf. This pitfall is related to the common error that appears when defining domains and ranges described in [7].
• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#dataSource
• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#dataSource
The contents of some annotation properties are swapped or misused. This pitfall might affect annotation properties related to natural language information (for example, annotations for naming such as rdfs:label or for providing descriptions such as rdfs:comment). Other types of annotation could also be affected as temporal, versioning information, among others.
• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#powersWebSite
• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
› http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#powersWebSite
An ontology element is used as a class without having been explicitly declared as such using the primitives owl:Class or rdfs:Class. This pitfall is related with the common problems listed in [8].
• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Document
› http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q1391125
› http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Database
› http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#Dataset
• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Document
› http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q1391125
› http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Database
› http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#Dataset
This pitfall occurs if file extensions such as ".owl", ".rdf", ".ttl", ".n3" and ".rdfxml" are included in an ontology URI. This pitfall is related with the recommendations provided in [9].
*This pitfall applies to the ontology in general instead of specific elements.
*This pitfall applies to the ontology in general instead of specific elements.
Suggestions or warnings:
The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?
› | http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#isPluginOf
› | http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#hasDependency
› | http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#isPluginOf
› | http://deductions.github.io/doas.owl.ttl#hasDependency
According to the highest importance level of pitfall found in your ontology the conformace bagde suggested is "Critical pitfalls" (see below). You can use the following HTML code to insert the badge within your ontology documentation:
References
Lexicalizing Ontologies: The issues behind the labels. In Multimodal communication in the 21st century: Professional and academic challenges. 33rd Conference of the Spanish Association of Applied Linguistics (AESLA), XXXIII AESLA.
Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology.
Evaluation of Taxonomic Knowledge in Ontologies and Knowledge Bases. Proceedings of the Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop. Alberta, Canada.
Style guidelines for naming and labeling ontologies in the multilingual web.
Ontology Evaluation. PhD thesis.
Ontology evaluation. In Handbook on ontologies, pages 251-273. Springer.
Owl pizzas: Practical experience of teaching owl-dl: Common errors & common patterns. In Engineering Knowledge in the Age of the Semantic Web, pages 63-81. Springer.
Weaving the pedantic web. In Proceedings of the WWW2010 Workshop on Linked Data on the Web, LDOW 2010, Raleigh, USA, April 27, 2010.
D7. 1.3-study on persistent URIs, with identification of best practices and recommendations on the topic for the Mss and the EC. PwC EU Services.
“Linked Data - Design issues”. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
Linked Data: Evolving the Web into a Global Data Space. Morgan & Claypool, 1st edition.
Is your linked data vocabulary 5-star?. http://bvatant.blogspot.fr/2012/02/is-your-linked-data-vocabulary-5-star_9588.html
Enter your ontology to scan: