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://oops.linkeddata.es/example/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 P05: Defining wrong inverse relationships. 10 cases | Critical Critical

Two relationships are defined as inverse relations when they are not necessarily inverse.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P123i_resulted_from may not be inverse of http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P123_resulted_in
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P39i_was_measured_by may not be inverse of http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P39_measured
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P128_carries may not be inverse of http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P128i_is_carried_by
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P39_measured may not be inverse of http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P39i_was_measured_by
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P123_resulted_in may not be inverse of http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P123i_resulted_from
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P31_has_modified may not be inverse of http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P31i_was_modified_by
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P124i_was_transformed_by may not be inverse of http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P124_transformed
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P124_transformed may not be inverse of http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P124i_was_transformed_by
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P31i_was_modified_by may not be inverse of http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P31_has_modified
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P128i_is_carried_by may not be inverse of http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P128_carries

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

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

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/E29_Design_or_Procedure

Results for P08: Missing annotations. 20 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 no rdfs:label defined:
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P164i_temporally_specifies
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P166i_had_presence
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P165_incorporates
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P167i_includes
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P176i_starts_after_the_start_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P182i_starts_after_or_with_the_end_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P161i_is_spatial_projection_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P156i_is_occupied_by
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P179i_was_sales_price_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P175i_starts_after_or_with_the_start_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P167_was_within
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P180i_was_currency_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P183i_starts_after_the_end_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P198_holds_or_supports
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P160i_is_temporal_projection_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P165i_is_incorporated_in
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P166_was_a_presence_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P197_covered_parts_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P170i_time_is_defined_by
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P169i_spacetime_volume_is_defined_by

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. 45 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://erlangen-crm.org/current/P23_transferred_title_from
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P143_joined
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P186i_is_produced_by
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P52i_is_current_owner_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P29i_received_custody_through
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P165i_is_incorporated_in
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P50_has_current_keeper
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P160i_is_temporal_projection_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P76i_provides_access_to
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P23i_surrendered_title_through
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P191_had_duration
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P183i_starts_after_the_end_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P22_transferred_title_to
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P145_separated
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P180i_was_currency_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P50i_is_current_keeper_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P175i_starts_after_or_with_the_start_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P179i_was_sales_price_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P14_carried_out_by
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P28_custody_surrendered_by
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P29_custody_received_by
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P22i_acquired_title_through
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P177i_is_type_of_property_assigned
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P156i_is_occupied_by
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P14i_performed
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P161i_is_spatial_projection_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P182i_starts_after_or_with_the_end_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P176i_starts_after_the_start_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P52_has_current_owner
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P48i_is_preferred_identifier_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P28i_surrendered_custody_through
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P48_has_preferred_identifier
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P3_has_note
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P171_at_some_place_within
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P80_end_is_qualified_by
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P169i_spacetime_volume_is_defined_by
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P81_ongoing_throughout
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P170i_time_is_defined_by
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P57_has_number_of_parts
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P190_has_symbolic_content
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P79_beginning_is_qualified_by
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P90_has_value
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P172_contains
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P168_place_is_defined_by
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P82_at_some_time_within

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 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://erlangen-crm.org/current/E99_Product_Type

Results for P24: Using recursive definitions. 7 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://erlangen-crm.org/current/E90_Symbolic_Object
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/E89_Propositional_Object
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P132_spatiotemporally_overlaps_with
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P121_overlaps_with
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P139_has_alternative_form
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P122_borders_with
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P133_is_spatiotemporally_separated_from

Results for P25: Defining a relationship as inverse to itself. 5 cases | Important Important

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://erlangen-crm.org/current/P132_spatiotemporally_overlaps_with
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P121_overlaps_with
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P139_has_alternative_form
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P122_borders_with
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P133_is_spatiotemporally_separated_from

Results for P26: Defining inverse relationships for a symmetric one. 5 cases | Important Important

A symmetric object property (owl:SymmetricProperty) is defined as inverse of another object property (using owl:inverseOf).

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P133_is_spatiotemporally_separated_from
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P122_borders_with
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P139_has_alternative_form
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P121_overlaps_with
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P132_spatiotemporally_overlaps_with

Results for P29: Defining wrong transitive relationships. 2 cases | Critical Critical

A relationship is defined as transitive, using owl:TransitiveProperty, when the relationship is not necessarily transitive.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P27i_was_origin_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P27_moved_from

Results for P41: No license declared. ontology* | Important Important

The ontology metadata omits information about the license that applies to the ontology.

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

SUGGESTION: symmetric or transitive object properties. 22 cases

The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P69i_is_associated_with
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P175_starts_before_or_with_the_start_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P134_continued
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P189i_is_approximated_by
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P184i_ends_with_or_after_the_end_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P69_has_association_with
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P182_ends_before_or_with_the_start_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P189_approximates
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P73i_is_translation_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P130_shows_features_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P174i_ends_after_the_start_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P173_starts_before_or_with_the_end_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P152i_is_parent_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P134i_was_continued_by
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P73_has_translation
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P174_starts_before_the_end_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P185i_ends_after_the_end_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P130i_features_are_also_found_on
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P185_ends_before_the_end_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P173i_ends_after_or_with_the_start_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P184_ends_before_or_with_the_end_of
http://erlangen-crm.org/current/P152_has_parent


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

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}
}

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