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. 1 case | 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://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#UseData

Results for P08: Missing annotations. 72 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 no rdfs:label defined:
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#MakeAdaptationInstance
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Creator
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Render
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#WorkManifestationCopy
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#AdaptationManifestation
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#CopyrightExceptionFact
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Product
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Adaptor
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#AdaptationInstance
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Permission
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#MakeWorkInstanceCopy
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#MoveContent
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#MakeAdaptation
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#MakeWorkManifestation
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Distributor
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Fact
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#MakeCopy
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#AdaptationInstanceCopy
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Instance
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#EndUserAction
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#MakeAdaptationManifestation
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Instantiator
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Producer
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#WorkInstance
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Broadcast
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Copy
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#AdaptationManifestationCopy
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Work
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Synchronise
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Action
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#UseData
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#MakeAdaptationManifestationCopy
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Stream
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Adaptation
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#WorkInstanceCopy
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#ModifyCopy
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#MakeManifestation
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#MakeWorkManifestationCopy
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#MakeInstance
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#WorkManifestation
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#ContentHandler
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#MakeAdaptationInstanceCopy
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#User
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#PublicCommunication
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Download
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#CopyrightExceptionPermission
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Distribute
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Produce
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#IPEntity
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#MakeWorkInstance
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Collective
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#EndUser
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#CreateWork
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#Manifestation
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#hasRequired
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#issuedBy
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#acts
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#isMadeUpOf
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#isRightsOwnerOf
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#actOnBehalfOf
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#permitsAction
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#resultsIn
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#resultedFrom
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#actedOver
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#actedBy
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#belongsTo
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#hasRightsOwner
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#isTrue
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#isDigital
urn:mpeg:mpeg21:2002:01-DII-NS#RelatedIdentifier
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#hasSocialTag

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. 1 case | 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://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title

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. 7 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://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#hasRequired
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#issuedBy
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#isMadeUpOf
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#actOnBehalfOf
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#permitsAction
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#actedOver
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#belongsTo

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

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.

Results for P24: Using recursive definitions. 1 case | 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://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#IPEntity

Results for P29: Defining wrong transitive relationships. 2 cases | Critical Critical

A relationship is defined as transitive, using owl:TransitiveProperty, when the relationship is not necessarily transitive.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#actOnBehalfOf
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#belongsTo

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 P38: No OWL ontology declaration. ontology* | Important Important

This pitfall consists in not declaring the owl:Ontology tag, which provides the ontology metadata. The owl:Ontology tag aims at gathering metadata about a given ontology such as version information, license, provenance, creation date, and so on. It is also used to declare the inclusion of other ontologies.

*This pitfall applies to the ontology in general instead of specific elements.

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://purl.oclc.org/NET/mvco.owl#isMadeUpOf


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