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. 18 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://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Image
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/TaxonRank
http://purl.org/NET/biol/ns#Taxonomy
http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/biology.organism_classification
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Organization
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/TaxonName
http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Taxon
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person
http://purl.org/biodiversity/eol/Taxon
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Taxon
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/DataObject
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/BiologicalOrganism
http://bio2rdf.org/uniprot_resource:Taxon
http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/rdf/species-schema.rdf#SpeciesSynonym
http://purl.org/ontology/wo/Species
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/TaxonConcept
http://rdf.geospecies.org/ont/geospecies#TaxonConcept
http://rdfdata.eionet.europa.eu/itis/ontology/Taxon

Results for P08: Missing annotations. 41 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://dbpedia.org/ontology/Species
http://purl.uniprot.org/core/Taxon
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person
http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/Taxon
http://bio2rdf.org/uniprot_resource:Taxon
http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/biology.organism_classification
http://rdf.geospecies.org/ont/geospecies#TaxonConcept
http://rdfdata.eionet.europa.eu/itis/ontology/Taxon
http://purl.org/NET/biol/ns#Taxonomy
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Organization
http://purl.org/biodiversity/eol/Taxon
http://purl.org/ontology/wo/Species
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Image
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/TaxonConcept
http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/rdf/species-schema.rdf#SpeciesSynonym
http://purl.uniprot.org/core/scientificName
http://purl.org/biodiversity/eol/scientificName
http://purl.org/biodiversity/eol/authority
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl#authority
http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/rdf/species-schema.rdf#scientificName
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl#scientificName
http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/rdf/species-schema.rdf#authority
http://purl.org/NET/biol/ns#authority

• The following elements have neither rdfs:comment or skos:definition defined:
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/MapImage
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/DataObject
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Image
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/TaxonNameID
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/dbFamily
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/uniprotOrder
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/dbPhylum
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/uniprotKingdom
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/dbOrder
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/dbGenus
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/uniprotSpecies
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/dbKingdom
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/dbSpecies
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/uniprotGenus
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/dbClass
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/uniprotFamily
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/uniprotClass
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/uniprotPhylum

Results for P10: Missing disjointness. ontology* | Important Important

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.

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. 28 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://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/uniprotPhylum
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/uniprotClass
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/uniprotFamily
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/dbClass
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/uniprotGenus
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/dbSpecies
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/dbKingdom
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/uniprotSpecies
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/dbGenus
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/dbOrder
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/uniprotKingdom
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/dbPhylum
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/uniprotOrder
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/dbFamily
http://purl.org/NET/biol/ns#authority
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/commonName
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/trinomial
http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/rdf/species-schema.rdf#authority
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/monomial
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/authority
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl#scientificName
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/binomial
http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/rdf/species-schema.rdf#scientificName
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl#authority
http://purl.org/biodiversity/eol/authority
http://purl.org/biodiversity/eol/scientificName
http://purl.uniprot.org/core/scientificName
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/scientificName

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 P12: Equivalent properties not explicitly declared. 2 cases | Important Important

The ontology lacks information about equivalent properties (owl:equivalentProperty) in the cases of duplicated relationships and/or attributes.

• The following attributes could be defined as equivalent:
http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl#authority, http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/rdf/species-schema.rdf#authority, http://purl.org/biodiversity/eol/authority, http://purl.org/NET/biol/ns#authority, http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/authority
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/scientificName, http://purl.org/biodiversity/eol/scientificName, http://lod.taxonconcept.org/ontology/txn.owl#scientificName, http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/rdf/species-schema.rdf#scientificName, http://purl.uniprot.org/core/scientificName

Results for P13: Inverse relationships not explicitly declared. 20 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://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/canonicalFormID_Of could be inverse of http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/relatedTaxonNameID
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/canonicalFormID could be inverse of http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/relatedTaxonNameID
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/relatedTaxonNameID could be inverse of http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/relatedTaxonNameID_Of

• Sorry, OOPS! has no suggestions for the following relationships without inverse:
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/dbFamily
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/uniprotOrder
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/dbPhylum
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/uniprotKingdom
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/dbOrder
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/dbGenus
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/uniprotSpecies
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/dbKingdom
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/dbSpecies
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/uniprotGenus
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/dbClass
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/uniprotFamily
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/uniprotClass
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/uniprotPhylum

Results for P20: Misusing ontology annotations. 36 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://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Chordate
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Mammal
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Fungus
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Gnetophytes
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Arthropod
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Fern
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Eukaryote
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Ginkgo
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Jawless_fish
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Armoured_fish
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Moss
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Archaea
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/FloweringPlant
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Plant
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Tunicate
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Lungfish
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Tetrapod
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Conifer
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/ClubMoss
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Amphibian
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Cycad
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Fish
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Bacteria
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Cartilaginous_fish
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Crustacean
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Cephalochordate
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Mollusca
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Insect
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/GreenAlga
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Arachnid
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Ray_Fined_fish
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Bird
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/BiologicalOrganism
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Lobe_Finned_fish
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Animal
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/Red_algae

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 P35: Untyped property. 1 case | Important Important

An ontology element is used as a property without having been explicitly declared as such using the primitives rdf:Property, owl:ObjectProperty or owl:DatatypeProperty. This pitfall is related with the common problems listed in [8].

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/relatedName

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. 6 cases

The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/canonicalFormID_Of
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/canonicalFormID_Of
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/canonicalFormID
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/relatedTaxonNameID
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/relatedTaxonNameID_Of
http://purl.org/biodiversity/taxon/relatedTaxonNameID_Of


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