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:

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://purl.org/dc/dcam/VocabularyEncodingScheme
› http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/Collection
› http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl#Scientist
› http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Scientist
› http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl#ScientificIdentifierPerson
› http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Collection
› http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl#ScientificCollectorPerson
› http://purl.org/NET/c4dm/event.owl#Event
› http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl#ScientificDataCuratorPerson

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.

The domain or range (or both) of a property (relationships and attributes) is defined by stating more than one rdfs:domain or rdfs:range statements. In OWL multiple rdfs:domain or rdfs:range axioms are allowed, but they are interpreted as conjunction, being, therefore, equivalent to the construct owl:intersectionOf. This pitfall is related to the common error that appears when defining domains and ranges described in [7].

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
› http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/sci_people.owl#isRevisionalAuthorOfTaxon

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.

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://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Organization

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:

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:

	<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

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:

Evaluation results

Pitfalls detected:

Results for P04: Creating unconnected ontology elements. Minor 9 cases

Results for P08: Missing annotations. Minor 91 cases

Results for P10: Missing disjointness. ImportantOntology*

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. Important 58 cases

Results for P13: Inverse relationships not explicitly declared. Minor 55 cases

Results for P19: Defining multiple domains or ranges in properties. Critical1 case 1 case

Results for P22: Using different naming conventions in the ontology. MinorOntology*

Results for P34: Untyped class. Important1 case 1 case

Results for P36: URI contains file extension. MinorOntology*

Suggestions or warnings:

References

[1] Aguado-De Cea, G., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Poveda-Villalón, M., and Giraldo-Pasmin, O.X. (2015).

[2] Noy, N. F., McGuinness, D. L., et al. (2001).

[3] Gómez-Pérez, A. (1999).

[4] Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Vila Suero, D., Villazón-Terrazas, B., Dunsire, G., Escolano Rodríguez, E., Gómez-Pérez, A. (2011).

[5] Vrandecic, D. (2010).

[6] Gómez-Pérez, A. (2004).

[7] Rector, A., Drummond, N., Horridge, M., Rogers, J., Knublauch, H., Stevens, R., Wang, H., and Wroe, C. (2004).

[8] Hogan, A., Harth, A., Passant, A., Decker, S., and Polleres, A. (2010).

[9] Archer, P., Goedertier, S., and Loutas, N. (2012).

[10] Bernes-Lee Tim. (2006).

[11] Heath, T. and Bizer, C. (2011).

[12] Vatant, B. (2012).

How to cite OOPS!