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:

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://schema.org/Event
› http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#ConceptScheme
› http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#Contract
› http://schema.org/PostalAddress
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person
› http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#AwardCriteriaCombination

A class whose name refers to two or more different concepts is created.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
› http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#ContractOrProcedureExtinction

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/2004/02/skos/core#broader
› http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#minutesDocumentReference
› http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#onBehalfOf
› http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#lot
› http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#awardCriterion
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/member
› http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#actualPrice
› http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#documentReference
› http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#price
› http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#procedureVoid
› http://schema.org/location
› http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#narrower
› http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#resolutionDocumentReference
› http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#hasPriceSpecification
› http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#awardCriteriaCombination
› http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#topConceptOf
› http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#procedureResignation
› http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#procedureWaive
› http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#supplier
› http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#legalDocumentReference
› http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#contractingAuthority
› http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#inScheme
› http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#contractResolution
› http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#tender
› http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#offeredPrice
› http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#additionalDocumentReference
› http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#technicalDocumentReference
› http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#criterionWeight
› http://purl.org/dc/terms/title
› http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#actualEndDate
› http://schema.org/addressCountry
› http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#offeredDuration
› http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#estimatedDuration
› http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#tenderManteinanceDuration
› http://purl.org/dc/terms/date
› http://purl.org/dc/terms/description
› http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#duration
› http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#actualDuration
› http://schema.org/address
› http://schema.org/streetAddress
› http://schema.org/name
› http://schema.org/postalAddress
› http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#criteronName
› http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#finalFinancialGuaranteeDuration
› http://schema.org/addressLocality
› http://schema.org/startDate

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

• The following relations could be defined as equivalent:
› http://schema.org/location, http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#location

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://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#urgencyType
› http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#informationKind
› http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#procedureType

Two or more classes have the same content for natural language annotations for naming, for example the rdfs:label annotation. This pitfall might involve lack of accuracy when defining terms.

• The following classes contains the same label, maybe they should be replaced by one class with several labels or might be equivalent classes:
› http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#TenderCommittee, http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#Committee

Suggestions or warnings:

The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?
› | http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#complementaryContract

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 P04: Creating unconnected ontology elements. Minor 6 cases

Results for P07: Merging different concepts in the same class. Minor1 case 1 case

Results for P08: Missing annotations. Minor 168 cases

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. Important 46 cases

Results for P12: Equivalent properties not explicitly declared. Important1 case 1 case

Results for P13: Inverse relationships not explicitly declared. Minor 78 cases

Results for P19: Defining multiple domains or ranges in properties. Critical 3 cases

Results for P32: Several classes with the same label. Minor1 case 1 case

Suggestions or warnings:

SUGGESTION: symmetric or transitive object properties | 1 case

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!