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 P04: Creating unconnected ontology elements. 9 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://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#RFC5147String
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#ConceptScheme
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/semiotics.owl#Expression
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/semiotics.owl#Meaning
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#RestrictionProperty
http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#Context
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Organization
http://purl.org/vocommons/voaf#Vocabulary
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person

Results for P07: Merging different concepts in the same class. 2 cases | Minor Minor

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

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#OrCompoundRestriction
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#AndCompoundRestriction

Results for P08: Missing annotations. 70 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://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#RFC5147String
http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#Annotation
http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#Context
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person
http://purl.org/vocommons/voaf#Vocabulary
http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/synsem#OntoMap
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Organization
http://www.lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo#partOfSpeech
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#broader
http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#annotation
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/semiotics.owl#denotes

• The following elements have no rdfs:label defined:
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#valueDt

• The following elements have neither rdfs:comment or skos:definition defined:
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#PrepSynItem
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#SemanticRole
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#ThematicRole
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#RoleSelectionalRestriction
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#SyntacticRestrictionProperty
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#EventPredArgType
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#AbsentAtomicRestriction
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#OrCompoundRestriction
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#RoleRestrictionProperty
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#AuxnpType
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#VerbSynItem
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#CompoundRestriction
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#Pred
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#PrepositionSelectionalRestriction
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#ConstantPredArg
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#AdjSynItem
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#RestrictionProperty
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#ExistAtomicRestriction
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#SynItem
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#VerbClass
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#AtomicRestriction
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#SelectionalRestriction
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#PredArg
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#NpSynItem
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#PrepositionRestrictionProperty
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#EventPredArg
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#Restriction
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#VerbSpecificPredArg
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#SyntacticRestriction
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#AdvSynItem
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#SelectionalRestrictionProperty
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#ThemRolePredArg
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#VerbNetFrame
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#PredType
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/semiotics.owl#Meaning
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#ConceptScheme
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/semiotics.owl#Expression
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#thematicRole
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#subclassOf
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#restriction
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#definesSemRole
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#frame
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#definesFrame
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#semRole
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#evokedConcept
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#classRel
http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#referenceContext
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#evokingEntry
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#roleRel
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#inScheme
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#negPred
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#implPredArg
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#frameXtag
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#frameSecondary
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#framePrimary
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#frameDescNumber
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#abbreviation

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. 17 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://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#isConceptOf
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/semiotics.owl#denotes
http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#morphologicalPattern
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#inScheme
http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#concept
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#item
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#valueObj
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#first
http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#referenceContext
http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#annotation
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#broader
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#next
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#definesFrame
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#frameExample
http://www.lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo#partOfSpeech
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#abbreviation
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#valueDt

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. 24 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.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://www.lexinfo.net/ontology/2.0/lexinfo#partOfSpeech
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#thematicRole
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#subclassOf
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#restriction
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#frameExample
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#definesSemRole
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#frame
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#definesFrame
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#next
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#broader
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#evokedConcept
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#classRel
http://persistence.uni-leipzig.org/nlp2rdf/ontologies/nif-core#annotation
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#first
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#ontologyMatch
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#valueObj
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#roleRel
http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#lexicalForm
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#inScheme
http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#morphologicalPattern
http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#usage
http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#otherForm
http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#canonicalForm
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/semiotics.owl#denotes

Results for P20: Misusing ontology annotations. 1 case | 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://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#AndCompoundRestriction

Results for P24: Using recursive definitions. 6 cases | Important Important

An ontology element (a class, an object property or a datatype property) is used in its own definition. Some examples of this would be: (a) the definition of a class as the enumeration of several classes including itself; (b) the appearance of a class within its owl:equivalentClass or rdfs:subClassOf axioms; (c) the appearance of an object property in its rdfs:domain or range rdfs:range definitions; or (d) the appearance of a datatype property in its rdfs:domain definition.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#SyntacticRestriction
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#PredArg
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#SelectionalRestriction
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#SynItem
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#PrepositionSelectionalRestriction
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#RoleSelectionalRestriction

SUGGESTION: symmetric or transitive object properties. 6 cases

The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#subclassOf
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/vn#subclassOf
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#classRel
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#classRel
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#roleRel
http://premon.fbk.eu/ontology/core#roleRel


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

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