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 P04: Creating unconnected ontology elements. 2 cases | Minor Minor

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://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#LifeCycle
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#QualitativeValue

Results for P08: Missing annotations. 1 case | 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://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#datatypeDependencyProperty

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. 15 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://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasSystemOwner
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasReferenceBaseline
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasAccountable
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#links
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasBaseline
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasParty
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasProvider
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#qualitativeServiceProperty
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasDesignDocument
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasDependentObject
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasStatus
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasDependency
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#datatypeDependencyProperty
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasConfigurationDump
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#datatypeServiceProperty

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. 41 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://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#uses could be inverse of http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#requires

• Sorry, OOPS! has no suggestions for the following relationships without inverse:
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasDependencyStrength
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasSnapshot
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasTemplate
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasDependency
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasPublishingProcess
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasStatus
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasDeliverable
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasDesignProcess
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasDependentObject
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasPriority
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasConfiguration
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasDesignDocument
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#qualitativeServiceProperty
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasOperationProcess
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasWarranty
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasCriticality
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasProjectOwner
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasAgreement
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasProvider
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasInformed
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasManagementPlan
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#directReportOf
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasServiceOption
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasConsole
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasResponsible
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasParty
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasBaseline
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasConsulted
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasProvisioningProcess
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasCustomer
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#links
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasServiceScope
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasAccountable
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasUtility
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasManagementProcess
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasCMDB
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasReferenceBaseline
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasSystemOwner
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasEditingProcess

Results for P20: Misusing ontology annotations. 2 cases | 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://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasEditingProcess
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasProvisioningProcess

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.

SUGGESTION: symmetric or transitive object properties. 4 cases

The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#uses
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#directReportOf
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#hasConsole
http://ontology.it/itsmo/v1#requires


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:


Important pitfalls were found
<p>
<a href="http://oops.linkeddata.es"><img
	src="http://oops.linkeddata.es/resource/image/oops_important.png"
	alt="Important 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