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://data.semanticweb.org/ns/swc/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. 9 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://www.w3.org/ns/org#Role
http://qudt.org/1.1/schema/qudt#LengthUnit
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#Interval
http://www.w3.org/ns/org#Membership
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#Instant
http://qudt.org/1.1/schema/qudt#AngleUnit
http://qudt.org/1.1/schema/qudt#CountingUnit
http://purl.org/vocommons/voaf#Vocabulary
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person

Results for P08: Missing annotations. 11 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 neither rdfs:label or rdfs:comment (nor skos:definition) defined:
http://purl.org/vocommons/voaf#Vocabulary
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#Instant
http://www.w3.org/ns/org#Role
http://qudt.org/1.1/schema/qudt#AngleUnit
http://qudt.org/1.1/schema/qudt#LengthUnit
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person
http://qudt.org/1.1/schema/qudt#QuantityValue
http://qudt.org/1.1/schema/qudt#CountingUnit
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#Interval
http://www.w3.org/ns/org#Membership
http://qudt.org/1.1/schema/qudt#unit

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. 5 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://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#domainOfValidity
http://qudt.org/1.1/schema/qudt#unit
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#codeSpace
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#scope
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#epsgID

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 P13: Inverse relationships not explicitly declared. 26 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://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#datum
http://qudt.org/1.1/schema/qudt#unit
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#usesParameter
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#semiMinorAxis
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#baseCRS
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#usesValue
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#parameter
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#cartesianCS
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#ellipsoid
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#axis
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#verticalDatum
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#sourceCRS
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#verticalCS
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#primeMeridian
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#geographicElement
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#includesSingleCRS
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#coordinateSystem
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#usesMethod
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#semiMajorAxis
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#inverseFlattening
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#domainOfValidity
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#conversion
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#geodeticDatum
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#ellipsoidalCS
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#targetCRS
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#greenwichLongitude

Results for P20: Misusing ontology annotations. 1 case | Minor Minor

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://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#SingleCRSList

Results for P24: Using recursive definitions. 2 cases | Important Important

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://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#AxesList
http://data.ign.fr/def/ignf#SingleCRSList

Results for P40: Namespace hijacking. 1 case | Critical Critical

It refers to reusing or referring to terms from another namespace that are not defined in such namespace. This is an undesirable situation as no information can be retrieved when looking up those undefined terms. This pitfall is related to the Linked Data publishing guidelines provided in [11]: "Only define new terms in a namespace that you control" and to the guidelines provided in [5].

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://creativecommons.org/ns#license

• For detecting this pitfall we rely on TripleChecker. See more results at TripleChecker website. Up to now this pitfall is only available for the "Scanner by URI" option.


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:


Critical pitfalls were found
<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:

  • [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

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