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://rdfs.co/juso/PostalCode

Results for P08: Missing annotations. 67 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://linkedgeodata.org/ontology/Place
http://schema.org/State
http://www.geonames.org/ontology#Feature
http://schema.org/AdministrativeArea
http://dbpedia.org/ontology/State
http://schema.org/PostalAddress
http://schema.org/City
http://linkedgeodata.org/ontology/State
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#Feature
http://schema.org/GeoShape

• The following elements have no rdfs:label defined:
http://rdfs.co/juso/ConsolidatedCityCounty
http://rdfs.co/juso/PostalCode
http://rdfs.co/juso/Feature
http://rdfs.co/juso/PoliticalDivision
http://rdfs.co/juso/FederatedState
http://rdfs.co/juso/City
http://rdfs.co/juso/FirstLevelAdministrativeDivision
http://rdfs.co/juso/District
http://rdfs.co/juso/FourthLevelAdministrativeDivision
http://rdfs.co/juso/Geometry
http://rdfs.co/juso/AdministrativeDivision
http://rdfs.co/juso/Municipality
http://rdfs.co/juso/Thoroughfare
http://rdfs.co/juso/FifthLevelAdministrativeDivision
http://rdfs.co/juso/Street
http://rdfs.co/juso/Hamlet
http://rdfs.co/juso/Province
http://rdfs.co/juso/ThirdLevelAdministrativeDivision
http://rdfs.co/juso/Address
http://rdfs.co/juso/Township
http://rdfs.co/juso/Country
http://rdfs.co/juso/County
http://rdfs.co/juso/SpatialThing
http://rdfs.co/juso/SecondLevelAdministrativeDivision
http://rdfs.co/juso/Town
http://rdfs.co/juso/CapitalDistrict
http://rdfs.co/juso/Neighborhood
http://rdfs.co/juso/Village
http://rdfs.co/juso/Point
http://rdfs.co/juso/Parish
http://rdfs.co/juso/parent
http://rdfs.co/juso/historical_address
http://rdfs.co/juso/address
http://rdfs.co/juso/second_level_administrative_division
http://rdfs.co/juso/locator
http://rdfs.co/juso/geometry
http://rdfs.co/juso/first_level_administrative_division
http://rdfs.co/juso/fifth_level_administrative_division
http://rdfs.co/juso/country
http://rdfs.co/juso/third_level_administrative_division
http://rdfs.co/juso/thoroughfare
http://rdfs.co/juso/fourth_level_administrative_division
http://rdfs.co/juso/endonym
http://rdfs.co/juso/official_name
http://rdfs.co/juso/itrf2000_lat
http://rdfs.co/juso/exonym
http://rdfs.co/juso/itrf2000_long
http://rdfs.co/juso/post_office_box
http://rdfs.co/juso/full_address
http://rdfs.co/juso/wgs84_long
http://rdfs.co/juso/locator_address
http://rdfs.co/juso/wgs84_lat
http://rdfs.co/juso/alternate_name
http://rdfs.co/juso/postal_code
http://rdfs.co/juso/thoroughfare_address
http://rdfs.co/juso/name
http://rdfs.co/juso/short_name

Results for P40: Namespace hijacking. 28 cases | 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
http://creativecommons.org/ns#Work
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_1
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_10
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_11
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_12
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_13
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_14
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_15
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_16
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_2
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_3
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_4
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_5
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_6
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_7
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_8
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_9
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_17
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_18
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_19
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_20
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_21
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_22
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_23
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_24
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_25
http://www.w3.org/ns/adms#SemanticAsset

• 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.


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