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!

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

An ontology element (a class, an object property or a datatype property) is used in its own definition. Some examples of this would be: (a) the definition of a class as the enumeration of several classes including itself; (b) the appearance of a class within its owl:equivalentClass or rdfs:subClassOf axioms; (c) the appearance of an object property in its rdfs:domain or range rdfs:range definitions; or (d) the appearance of a datatype property in its rdfs:domain definition.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#alternateOf

A relationship is defined as inverse of itself. In this case, this relationship could have been defined as owl:SymmetricProperty instead.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#alternateOf

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://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadDerivation
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedInfluenceOf
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadRevision
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasRoleIn
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedDerivationOf
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#started
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasPrimarySourceOf
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#revisedEntity
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasPlanOf
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedAttributionOf
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#informed
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#contributed
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedSourceOf
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasUsedBy
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#entityOfInfluence
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasUsedInDerivation
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#activityOfInfluence
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasAssociateFor
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#locationOf
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedQuotationOf
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedInvalidationOf
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadDelegate
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedGenerationOf
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#ended
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#agentOfInfluence
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedAssociationOf
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#generalizationOf
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedDelegationOf
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasActivityOfInfluence
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedUsingActivity
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedEndOf
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#generatedAsDerivation
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasMemberOf
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedCommunicationOf
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadInfluence
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedStartOf
› http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#quotedAs

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:

The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?
› | http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#specializationOf
› | http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#alternateOf
› | http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasQuotedFrom
› | http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasInformedBy
› | http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadPrimarySource
› | http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasDerivedFrom
› | http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#actedOnBehalfOf
› | http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasInfluencedBy
› | http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasRevisionOf

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:

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

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:

Evaluation results

Pitfalls detected:

Results for P08: Missing annotations. Minor 23 cases

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. Important 2 cases

Results for P19: Defining multiple domains or ranges in properties. Critical 2 cases

Results for P24: Using recursive definitions. Important1 case 1 case

Results for P25: Defining a relationship as inverse to itself. Important1 case 1 case

Results for P35: Untyped property. Important 37 cases

Results for P39: Ambiguous namespace. CriticalOntology*

Suggestions or warnings:

SUGGESTION: symmetric or transitive object properties | 9 cases

References

[1] Aguado-De Cea, G., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Poveda-Villalón, M., and Giraldo-Pasmin, O.X. (2015).

[2] Noy, N. F., McGuinness, D. L., et al. (2001).

[3] Gómez-Pérez, A. (1999).

[4] Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Vila Suero, D., Villazón-Terrazas, B., Dunsire, G., Escolano Rodríguez, E., Gómez-Pérez, A. (2011).

[5] Vrandecic, D. (2010).

[6] Gómez-Pérez, A. (2004).

[7] Rector, A., Drummond, N., Horridge, M., Rogers, J., Knublauch, H., Stevens, R., Wang, H., and Wroe, C. (2004).

[8] Hogan, A., Harth, A., Passant, A., Decker, S., and Polleres, A. (2010).

[9] Archer, P., Goedertier, S., and Loutas, N. (2012).

[10] Bernes-Lee Tim. (2006).

[11] Heath, T. and Bizer, C. (2011).

[12] Vatant, B. (2012).

How to cite OOPS!