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. 13 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://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#ConceptScheme
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#TerritoireAutonomeOuASouveraineteSpeciale
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#CommuneEnDouble
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#CollectiviteTerritorialeDeCollectiviteOutreMerOuAssimile
http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#SpatialThing
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#TerritoireFrancais
http://purl.org/dc/terms/Location
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Organization
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Document
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person
http://purl.org/NET/c4dm/event.owl#Event
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#Etat

Results for P08: Missing annotations. 66 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://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#Point

• The following elements have neither rdfs:comment or skos:definition defined:
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Document
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#CirconscriptionAdministrative
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#TypeTexteMouvement
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#ClasseMouvementBaseModification
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#Canton_CantonOuVille
http://creativecommons.org/ns#License
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#Changement
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#NUTS2
http://purl.org/dc/terms/Location
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#NUTS1
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#DistrictTAAF
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#Canton2015_CantonOuVille2015
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#TerritoireStatistiqueFrançais
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#ReferenceMouvement
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#TransfertURI
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#Canton_CantonOuVille_Canton2015_CantonOuVille2015
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#CollectiviteTerritorialeDeCollectiviteOutreMerOuAssimile
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#PaysOuTerritoire
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#ConceptScheme
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Organization
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#TerritoireFrancais
http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#SpatialThing
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#Creation
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#ClasseMouvementBase
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#NUTS0
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#CessionParcelle
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#LAU2
http://www.geonames.org/ontology#Code
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#TerritoireStatistiqueEuropeen
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#Suppression
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#LAU1
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#typeNomCharniereClair
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#typeTexte
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#URIAvant
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#estLieChangement
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#chefLieu
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#chefLieuCanton
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#mouvementBase
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#mouvementPropriete
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#URIApres
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#territtoireReceveuseParcelles
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#referenceMouvement
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#territoireCedanteParcelles
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#mouvementTerritoire
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#chefLieuCollectiviteDepartementaleOuCollectiviteTerritorialeEquivalente
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#referenceMouvementBase
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#codeDepartement
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#codeIRIS
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#surfaceCedee
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#codeRegion
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#dateEffet
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#codePays
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#populationCedee
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#codePaysCourt
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#dateTexte
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#codeArrondissement
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#codeMouvement
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#dateJO
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#nom
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#dateIntroduction
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#codeCanton
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#codeCommune
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#nomCharniereClair

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 P13: Inverse relationships not explicitly declared. 18 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://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#typeNomCharniereClair
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#typeTexte
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#URIAvant
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#sousPrefecture
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#estLieChangement
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#bureauCentralisateurCanton
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#chefLieu
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#chefLieuCanton
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#mouvementPropriete
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#URIApres
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#prefecture
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#territtoireReceveuseParcelles
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#referenceMouvement
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#territoireCedanteParcelles
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#mouvementTerritoire
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#communePole
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#chefLieuCollectiviteDepartementaleOuCollectiviteTerritorialeEquivalente
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#prefectureDeRegion

Results for P20: Misusing ontology annotations. 7 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://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#TerritoireAutonomeOuASouveraineteSpeciale
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#ZonePays
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#EtablissementPublicDeCooperationIntercommunale
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#RoyaumeCoutumier
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#CirconscriptionWallisFutuna
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#NUTS
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#bureauCentralisateurCanton

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. 2 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://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#memeTerritoire
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#territoireCommunAvec

Results for P25: Defining a relationship as inverse to itself. 2 cases | Important Important

A relationship is defined as inverse of itself. In this case, this relationship could have been defined as owl:SymmetricProperty instead.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#memeTerritoire
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#territoireCommunAvec

Results for P32: Several classes with the same label. 5 cases | Minor Minor

Two or more classes have the same content for natural language annotations for naming, for example the rdfs:label annotation. This pitfall might involve lack of accuracy when defining terms.

• The following classes contains the same label, maybe they should be replaced by one class with several labels or might be equivalent classes:
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#LAU1, http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#LAU2
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#NUTS0, http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#NUTS1, http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#NUTS2
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#Region, http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#CirconscriptionAdministrativeRegionale
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#NUTS0, http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#NUTS1
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#CollectiviteDepartementaleOuCollectiviteTerritorialeEquivalente, http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#Departement

Results for P34: Untyped class. 2 cases | Important Important

An ontology element is used as a class without having been explicitly declared as such using the primitives owl:Class or rdfs:Class. This pitfall is related with the common problems listed in [8].

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#TypeTNCC
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#ClasseReferenceMouvement

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://www.geonames.org/ontology#countryCode

Results for P40: Namespace hijacking. 1 case | Critical Critical

It refers to reusing or referring to terms from another namespace that are not defined in such namespace. This is an undesirable situation as no information can be retrieved when looking up those undefined terms. This pitfall is related to the Linked Data publishing guidelines provided in [11]: "Only define new terms in a namespace that you control" and to the guidelines provided in [5].

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://creativecommons.org/ns#license

• For detecting this pitfall we rely on TripleChecker. See more results at TripleChecker website. Up to now this pitfall is only available for the "Scanner by URI" option.

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. 21 cases

The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#subdivisionPartition
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#subdivisionPartition
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#subdivisionIndirecteDe
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#subdivisionIndirecteDe
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#subdivisionIndirecteDe
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#subdivisionDe
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#subdivisionDe
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#territoireCommunAvec
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#chefLieu
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#memeTerritoire
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#subdivision
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#subdivisionIndirecte
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#subdivisionIndirecte
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#subdivisionDirecteDe
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#subdivisionDirecteDe
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#subdivisionDirecteDe
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#subdivisionDirecte
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#subdivisionDirecte
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#subdivisionPartitionDe
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#subdivisionPartitionDe
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#subdivisionPartitionDe


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