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://www.w3.org/ns/prov#Agent
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#Role
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#Collection
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#SoftwareAgent
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#Organization
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#EmptyCollection
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#Entity
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#Activity
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#Location
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#Person
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#generated
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#invalidated
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#influenced
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasInvalidatedBy
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#specializationOf
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#entity
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#alternateOf
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#activity
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasGeneratedBy
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadPrimarySource
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadMember
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#agent
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#value

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://www.w3.org/ns/prov#influenced
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#value

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://www.w3.org/ns/prov#specializationOf could be inverse of http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#alternateOf
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#alternateOf could be inverse of http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasQuotedFrom
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasQuotedFrom could be inverse of http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadPrimarySource
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadPrimarySource could be inverse of http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasDerivedFrom
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasDerivedFrom could be inverse of http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasRevisionOf

• Sorry, OOPS! has no suggestions for the following relationships without inverse:
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedQuotation
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedAssociation
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#atLocation
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadRole
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadGeneration
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadUsage
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedGeneration
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasStartedBy
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedPrimarySource
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#entity
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedAttribution
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#influencer
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#activity
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#used
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadPlan
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasAssociatedWith
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedDelegation
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasInformedBy
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedCommunication
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedEnd
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasEndedBy
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedInvalidation
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadActivity
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedInfluence
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedUsage
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedStart
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasAttributedTo
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedRevision
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#actedOnBehalfOf
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadMember
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#agent
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedDerivation

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://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadActivity
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadRole

This pitfall consists in declaring neither the ontology URI nor the xml:base namespace. If this is the case, the ontology namespace is matched to the file location. This situation is not desirable, as the location of a file might change while the ontology should remain stable, as proposed in [12].

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

Suggestions or warnings:




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:

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

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





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}
}



OEG logo
ESTIINF logo


Escuela Técnica
Superior de
Ingenieros Informáticos

UPM logo


Universidad
Politécnica
de Madrid