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. 6 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://dati.camera.it/ocd/autore
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/presidenteRepubblica
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/stralcio
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/documenti
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/tipologia
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/lavori

Results for P08: Missing annotations. 74 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:comment or skos:definition defined:
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/lavori
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/legge
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/luogo
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/dibattito
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/discussione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/risorsa_web
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/allegatoDiscussione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/votazione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/organo
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/pubblicistica
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/seduta
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/relatore
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/presidenteCamera
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/presidenteRepubblica
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/versioneTestoAtto
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/presidenteConsiglioMinistri
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/senatore
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/delegatoRispondere
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/sessioneLegislatura
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/firmaAIC
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/documenti
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/trasmissione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/intervento
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/giurisprudenza
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/dottrina
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/cronologia
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/voto
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/documentazione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/note
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/tipologia
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/bollettino
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_allegatoDiscussione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_delegato
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_dibattito
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_firmaAIC
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/attoPortante
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_versioneTestoAtto
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_votazione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_trasmissione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_presidenteConsiglioMinistri
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_elezione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_luogo
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_intervento
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_sessione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_bollettino
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_richiestaParere
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_abbinamento
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_membroGoverno
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/risposta
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_statoIter
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_natura
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/stralciatoIn
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/lavoriPreparatori
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_assegnazione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_incaricoGoverno
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/votanti
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/dataApposizione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/contrari
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/favorevoli
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/dataRitiro
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/tipoTesto
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/tipoElezione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/ramo
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/numeroOrdine
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/votazioneFinale
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/presenti
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/richiestaFiducia
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/membroConsulta
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/approvato
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/dataDelega
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/astenuti
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/votazioneSegreta
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/maggioranza
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/dataFineDelega

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. 15 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://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#exactMatch
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#narrowerTransitive
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#narrower
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#closeMatch
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#related
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#narrowMatch
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#mappingRelation
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#inScheme
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#broaderTransitive
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#broadMatch
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#broader
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#relatedMatch
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/ac
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/doc
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#notation

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. 65 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.

• OOPS! has the following suggestions for the relationships without inverse:
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/attoPortante could be inverse of http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_abbinamento

• Sorry, OOPS! has no suggestions for the following relationships without inverse:
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_incarico
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/componente
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/doc
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_ufficioParlamentare
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_allegatoDiscussione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_delegato
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_dibattito
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/aderisce
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_firmaAIC
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/membro
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_leg
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_versioneTestoAtto
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_votazione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_attoCamera
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_trasmissione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/destinatario
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/diventa
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/griglia
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/altro_firmatario
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_presidenteConsiglioMinistri
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/ac
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_elezione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_luogo
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_mandatoCamera
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_dossier
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_intervento
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_sessione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/primo_firmatario
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_bollettino
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_richiestaParere
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_membroGoverno
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/fa_parte_della
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_organoGoverno
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_deputato
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/plurieletto
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/siComponeDi
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/risposta
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_gruppoParlamentare
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_governo
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/denominazione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_statoIter
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_organo
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/tipoProclamazione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_doc
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_mandatoSenato
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_unitaOrganizzativa
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_natura
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/nomina
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_sistemaElettorale
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/stralciatoIn
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/lavoriPreparatori
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_persona
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_senatore
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_seduta
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_assegnazione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/haMembro
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_discussione
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_incaricoGoverno
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#memberList
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#inScheme
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#mappingRelation
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#member
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#semanticRelation

Results for P20: Misusing ontology annotations. 3 cases | 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://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_governo
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/rif_gruppoParlamentare
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/name

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. 1 case | 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://labs.mondeca.com/vocab/voaf#Vocabulary

Results for P35: Untyped property. 6 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://www.geonames.org/ontology#parentCountry
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/date
http://www.geonames.org/ontology#parentADM1
http://www.geonames.org/ontology#name
http://www.geonames.org/ontology#parentADM2
http://www.geonames.org/ontology#parentADM3

Results for P36: URI contains file extension. ontology* | Minor Minor

This pitfall occurs if file extensions such as ".owl", ".rdf", ".ttl", ".n3" and ".rdfxml" are included in an ontology URI. This pitfall is related with the recommendations provided in [9].

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

Results for P40: Namespace hijacking. 3 cases | 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#licence
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/issued
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/modified

• 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.

SUGGESTION: symmetric or transitive object properties. 2 cases

The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?
http://dati.camera.it/ocd/stralciatoIn
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#semanticRelation


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