scanning


OOPS! is scanning...

OOPS! (OntOlogy Pitfall Scanner!) helps you to detect some of the most common pitfalls appearing when developing ontologies.

To try it, enter a URI or paste an OWL document into the text field above. A list of pitfalls and the elements of your ontology where they appear will be displayed.

Scanner by URI:

Example: http://oops.linkeddata.es/example/swc_2009-05-09.rdf


Scanner by direct input:

Uncheck this checkbox if you don't want us to keep a copy of your ontology.

Evaluation results

It is obvious that not all the pitfalls are equally important; their impact in the ontology will depend on multiple factors. For this reason, each pitfall has an importance level attached indicating how important it is. We have identified three levels:

  • Critical Critical : It is crucial to correct the pitfall. Otherwise, it could affect the ontology consistency, reasoning, applicability, etc.
  • Important Important : Though not critical for ontology function, it is important to correct this type of pitfall.
  • Minor Minor : It is not really a problem, but by correcting it we will make the ontology nicer.

Results for P04: Creating unconnected ontology elements. 3 cases | Minor Minor

Ontology elements (classes, object properties and datatype properties) are created isolated, with no relation to the rest of the ontology.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/OnlineAccount
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#Community
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Document

Results for P08: Missing annotations. 10 cases | Minor Minor

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 no rdfs:label defined:
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Document
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/OnlineAccount
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/depiction
http://purl.org/dc/terms/subject
http://purl.org/dc/terms/references
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/account
http://purl.org/dc/terms/date
http://purl.org/dc/terms/title
http://purl.org/dc/terms/description

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. 48 cases | Important Important

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://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#generator
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#related_to
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#avatar
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/account
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#reference
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#has_function
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#has_owner
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#has_creator
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#link
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#topic
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#attachment
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#addressed_to
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#creator_of
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#scope_of
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#space_of
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#modifier_of
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#has_space
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#discussion_of
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#part_of
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#feed
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#has_discussion
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#email
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#respond_to
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#links_to
http://purl.org/dc/terms/references
http://purl.org/dc/terms/subject
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#group_of
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#has_modifier
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#has_group
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#has_part
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#has_scope
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#likes
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#about
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#owner_of
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#function_of
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/depiction
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#num_authors
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#name
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#num_views
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#last_activity_date
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#note
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#last_reply_date
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#id
http://purl.org/dc/terms/description
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#num_replies
http://purl.org/dc/terms/title
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#ip_address
http://purl.org/dc/terms/date

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!

Results for P12: Equivalent properties not explicitly declared. 2 cases | Important Important

The ontology lacks information about equivalent properties (owl:equivalentProperty) in the cases of duplicated relationships and/or attributes.

• The following attributes could be defined as equivalent:
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#title, http://purl.org/dc/terms/title
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#description, http://purl.org/dc/terms/description

Results for P13: Inverse relationships not explicitly declared. 24 cases | Minor Minor

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.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/depiction
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#about
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#likes
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#latest_version
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#read_at
http://purl.org/dc/terms/subject
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#mentions
http://purl.org/dc/terms/references
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#delivered_at
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#links_to
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#respond_to
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#email
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#feed
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#addressed_to
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#follows
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#attachment
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#topic
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#link
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#reference
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#avatar
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#related_to
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#embeds_knowledge
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#shared_by
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#generator

Results for P22: Using different naming conventions in the ontology. ontology* | Minor Minor

The ontology elements are not named following the same convention (for example CamelCase or use of delimiters as "-" or "_") . Some notions about naming conventions are provided in [2].

*This pitfall applies to the ontology in general instead of specific elements.

Results for P34: Untyped class. 2 cases | Important Important

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://www.w3.org/2004/03/trix/rdfg-1/Graph
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#User

Results for P35: Untyped property. 2 cases | Important Important

An ontology element is used as a property without having been explicitly declared as such using the primitives rdf:Property, owl:ObjectProperty or owl:DatatypeProperty. This pitfall is related with the common problems listed in [8].

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://purl.org/dc/terms/hasPart
http://purl.org/dc/terms/partOf

Results for P38: No OWL ontology declaration. ontology* | Important Important

This pitfall consists in not declaring the owl:Ontology tag, which provides the ontology metadata. The owl:Ontology tag aims at gathering metadata about a given ontology such as version information, license, provenance, creation date, and so on. It is also used to declare the inclusion of other ontologies.

*This pitfall applies to the ontology in general instead of specific elements.

Results for P41: No license declared. ontology* | Important Important

The ontology metadata omits information about the license that applies to the ontology.

*This pitfall applies to the ontology in general instead of specific elements.

SUGGESTION: symmetric or transitive object properties. 10 cases

The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#latest_version
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#parent_of
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#reply_of
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#previous_by_date
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#next_by_date
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#follows
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#has_parent
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#previous_version
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#has_reply
http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#next_version


According to the highest importance level of pitfall found in your ontology the conformace bagde suggested is "Important pitfalls" (see below). You can use the following HTML code to insert the badge within your ontology documentation:


Important pitfalls were found
<p>
<a href="http://oops.linkeddata.es"><img
	src="http://oops.linkeddata.es/resource/image/oops_important.png"
	alt="Important pitfalls were found" height="69.6" width="100" /></a>
</p>


References:

  • [1] Aguado-De Cea, G., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Poveda-Villalón, M., and Giraldo-Pasmin, O.X. (2015). 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.
  • [2] Noy, N. F., McGuinness, D. L., et al. (2001). Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology.
  • [3] Gómez-Pérez, A. (1999). Evaluation of Taxonomic Knowledge in Ontologies and Knowledge Bases. Proceedings of the Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop. Alberta, Canada.
  • [4] Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Vila Suero, D., Villazón-Terrazas, B., Dunsire, G., Escolano Rodríguez, E., Gómez-Pérez, A. (2011). Style guidelines for naming and labeling ontologies in the multilingual web.
  • [5] Vrandecic, D. (2010). Ontology Evaluation. PhD thesis.
  • [6] Gómez-Pérez, A. (2004). Ontology evaluation. In Handbook on ontologies, pages 251-273. Springer.
  • [7] Rector, A., Drummond, N., Horridge, M., Rogers, J., Knublauch, H., Stevens, R., Wang, H., and Wroe, C. (2004). 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.
  • [8] Hogan, A., Harth, A., Passant, A., Decker, S., and Polleres, A. (2010). Weaving the pedantic web. In Proceedings of the WWW2010 Workshop on Linked Data on the Web, LDOW 2010, Raleigh, USA, April 27, 2010.
  • [9] Archer, P., Goedertier, S., and Loutas, N. (2012). 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.
  • [10] Bernes-Lee Tim. (2006). “Linked Data - Design issues”. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
  • [11] Heath, T. and Bizer, C. (2011). Linked Data: Evolving the Web into a Global Data Space. Morgan & Claypool, 1st edition.
  • [12] Vatant, B. (2012). Is your linked data vocabulary 5-star?. http://bvatant.blogspot.fr/2012/02/is-your-linked-data-vocabulary-5-star_9588.html

How to cite OOPS!

Poveda-Villalón, María, Asunción Gómez-Pérez, and Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa. "OOPS!(Ontology Pitfall Scanner!): An on-line tool for ontology evaluation." International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems (IJSWIS) 10.2 (2014): 7-34.


BibTex:


@article{poveda2014oops,
 title={{OOPS! (OntOlogy Pitfall Scanner!): An On-line Tool for Ontology Evaluation}},
 author={Poveda-Villal{\'o}n, Mar{\'i}a and G{\'o}mez-P{\'e}rez, Asunci{\'o}n and Su{\'a}rez-Figueroa, Mari Carmen},
 journal={International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems (IJSWIS)},
 volume={10},
 number={2},
 pages={7--34},
 year={2014},
 publisher={IGI Global}
}

Please, help us making OOPS! better. Feedback is more than welcome!
In addition, you can also suggest new pitfalls so that they can be detected in future evaluations.

Want to help?

Documentation:

Related papers:

Web services:

Developed by:

OEG logo