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. 8 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://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#SpatialThing
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept
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

Results for P08: Missing annotations. 64 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 defined:
http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#Point

• The following elements have no rdfs:comment defined:
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#UniteUrbaine
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#TypeDIRIS
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#AireUrbaine
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Document
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#Departement
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#NUTS
http://creativecommons.org/ns#License
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#NUTS2
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#EchangeParcellesInhabiteesCommunesIriseesNonIrisees
http://purl.org/dc/terms/Location
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#Commune
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#TRIRIS
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#DeplacementDeLimitesDIRIS
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#NUTS1
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#RetablissementCommunesIssuesDeCommuneIrisees
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#Arrondissement
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#ModificationDeGroupement
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#ScissionDIRIS
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#ConceptScheme
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#EchangeParcellesHabiteesCommunesIriseesNonIrisees
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Organization
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#GrandQuartier
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#ZoneDEmploi
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#Pays
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#ModificationDIRIS
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#LAU2
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#NUTS3
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#LAU
http://www.geonames.org/ontology#Code
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#TypeDEPCI
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#FusionDeCommunesIrisees
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#EchangeParcellesCommunesIrisees
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#LAU1
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#capitale
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#nouveauChefLieu
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#ancienChefLieu
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#sousPrefecture
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#codeAdministratifGeonames
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#chefLieuDeCanton
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#communeDeplacee
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#territoireModifie
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#resultante
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#territoireDeRattachement
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#prefecture
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#territoireDOrigine
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#typeDEPCI
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#typeDIRIS
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#groupementModifie
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#prefectureDeRegion
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#centroide
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#codeDepartement
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#codeIRIS
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#codeRegion
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#nouveauNom
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#codePays
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#ancienNom
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#codeArrondissement
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#nom
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#codeCanton
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#codeCommune

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. 7 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://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#prefectureDeRegion
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#subdivisionDirecte
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#prefecture
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#chefLieuDeCanton
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#sousPrefecture
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#membre
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#capitale

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://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#capitale
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#nouveauChefLieu
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#fractionCantonale
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#ancienChefLieu
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#membre
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#sousPrefecture
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#chefLieuDeCommune
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#codeAdministratifGeonames
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#chefLieuDeCanton
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#communeDeplacee
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#paysEntrant
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#chefLieu
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#resultante
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#territoireDeRattachement
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#prefecture
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#territoireDOrigine
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#subdivisionDirecte
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#typeDEPCI
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#typeDIRIS
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#groupementModifie
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#modificationInduite
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#prefectureDeRegion
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#centroide
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#paysSortant

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://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#paysSortant
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#paysEntrant

SUGGESTION: symmetric or transitive object properties. 2 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#modificationInduite
http://rdf.insee.fr/def/geo#modificationInduite


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