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 P08: Missing annotations. 51 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://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

Results for P10: Missing disjointness. ontology* | Important Important

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.

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. 7 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://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!

Results for P13: Inverse relationships not explicitly declared. 28 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://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

Results for P35: Untyped property. 2 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://purl.org/dc/terms/modified
http://purl.org/dc/terms/title

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. 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://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/created

• 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.

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. 1 case

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 "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