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:label or rdfs:comment (nor skos:definition) defined:
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#GovItem

• The following elements have neither rdfs:comment or skos:definition defined:
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#PropertyName
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#Type
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#Property
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#SourceReference
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#Source
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#Timespan
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#GovObject
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#PropertyType
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#Relation
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#PropertyForSource
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#PropertyForObject
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#Note
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#Position
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#isLocatedIn
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasArea
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasType
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasISBN
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasPopulation
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#position
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#containsInformationAbout
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#sourceRef
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasHouseholds
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasWNumber
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#ref
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasTitle
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#note
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#type
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasMunicipalityId
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#source
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#isReplacedBy
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasPostalCode
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasSubtitle
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#property
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasDenomination
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#relation
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#isPartOf
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasAuthor
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasName
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#begin
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#language
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#lastModification
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#noteText
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#end
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#longitude
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#height
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasURL
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#sourceNote
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#typeName
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#value
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#latitude

The ontology lacks disjoint axioms between classes or between properties that should be defined as disjoint. This pitfall is related with the guidelines provided in [6], [2] and [7].

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

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://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#source
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#note
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#value
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#typeName
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#end
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#language
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#begin

• 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!

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://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#isLocatedIn could be inverse of http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#ref
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#ref could be inverse of http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#represents

• Sorry, OOPS! has no suggestions for the following relationships without inverse:
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasArea
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasType
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasISBN
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasPopulation
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#position
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#containsInformationAbout
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#sourceRef
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasHouseholds
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasWNumber
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasTitle
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#note
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#type
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasMunicipalityId
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#time
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#source
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#isReplacedBy
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasPostalCode
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasSubtitle
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#property
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasDenomination
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#relation
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#isPartOf
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasAuthor
› http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#hasName

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://purl.org/dc/terms/modified
› http://purl.org/dc/terms/title

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.

Suggestions or warnings:


The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?
› | http://gov.genealogy.net/ontology.owl#isReplacedBy


According to the highest importance level of pitfall found in your ontology the conformace bagde suggested is "Important pitfalls" (see below). You can use the following HTML code to insert the badge within your ontology documentation:




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:

Example: http://oops.linkeddata.es/example/swc_2009-05-09.rdf

Uncheck this checkbox if you don't want us to keep a copy of your ontology.





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} 
	}



OEG logo
ESTIINF logo


Escuela Técnica
Superior de
Ingenieros Informáticos

UPM logo


Universidad
Politécnica
de Madrid