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/vocommons/voaf#Vocabulary
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#Organization
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#Person
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Agent

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

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
› http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#ProductOrService
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#ProductOrServiceRange

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://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Agent
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#Person
› http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/v1#Brand
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#Ambassador
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#Organization
› http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#ProductOrService
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person
› http://purl.org/vocommons/voaf#Vocabulary
› http://www.w3.org/ns/org#Organization
› http://schema.org/brand
› http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#BusinessEntity
› http://www.w3.org/ns/org#hasSite
› http://www.w3.org/ns/org#hasPrimarySite
› http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#hasLogo
› http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/date
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_logo
› http://dbpedia.org/ontology/formationYear
› http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#color
› http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator
› http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/v1#description

• The following elements have no rdfs:label defined:
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#Designer
› http://vivoweb.org/ontology/core#Division
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#ProductOrServiceRange
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#Component
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#Package
› http://schema.org/Provider
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#hasFounder
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#hasRepresentative
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#belongsToGroup
› http://vocab.data.gov/def/drm#worksFor
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#hasAmbassador
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#hasFragranceCreator
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#belongsToProductOrServiceRange
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#hasProvider
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#belongsToBrand
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#consistsOf
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#hasModel
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#belongsToPackage
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#hasPackageDesigner
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#hasCreator
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#hasComponent
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#belongsToDivision
› http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#hasTarget
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#hasVersion
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#healthImpact
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#hasFunctionality
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_depiction

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://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source
› http://www.w3.org/ns/org#hasPrimarySite
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#hasPackageDesigner
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#hasModel
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#belongsToProductOrServiceRange
› http://www.w3.org/ns/org#hasSite
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#hasRepresentative
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_depiction
› http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source
› http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_logo
› http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/date
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#hasTarget
› http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#hasLogo

• 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!

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://ns.inria.fr/provoc#hasModel
› http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#hasAmbassador
› http://vocab.data.gov/def/drm#worksFor
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_depiction
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_logo
› http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#hasLogo

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.

Two object properties or two datatype properties are defined as equivalent, using owl:equivalentProperty, even though they do not have the same semantics.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
› http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#hasLogo may not be equivalent to http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_logo

Two classes are defined as equivalent, using owl:equivalentClass, when they are not necessarily equivalent.

• The following classes might not be equivalent:
› http://www.w3.org/ns/org#Organization, http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#BusinessEntity

Suggestions or warnings:


The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?
› | http://ns.inria.fr/provoc#consistsOf


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:




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