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 P08: Missing annotations. 65 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://rdfs.co/juso/PostalCode
http://rdfs.co/juso/Feature
http://rdfs.co/juso/City
http://rdfs.co/juso/FirstLevelAdministrativeDivision
http://rdfs.co/juso/District
http://rdfs.co/juso/FourthLevelAdministrativeDivision
http://rdfs.co/juso/Street
http://rdfs.co/juso/Province
http://rdfs.co/juso/ThirdLevelAdministrativeDivision
http://rdfs.co/juso/Address
http://rdfs.co/juso/Township
http://rdfs.co/juso/County
http://rdfs.co/juso/SecondLevelAdministrativeDivision
http://rdfs.co/juso/Town
http://rdfs.co/juso/Neighborhood
http://rdfs.co/juso/Village

• The following elements have no rdfs:label defined:
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/RegionalLocalGovernment
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/SpecificCity
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/Building
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/Township
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/LegalStatusVillage
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/AutonomousDistrict
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/MultiFamilyResidentialBuilding
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/City
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/PostalCode1970
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/SpecialAutonomousProvince
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/RoadNameAddress
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/MetropolitanCity
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/Street
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/Town
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/NonAutonomousDistrict
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/PostalCode2015
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/EastAsianAddress
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/MetropolitanAutonomousCity
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/Boulevard
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/County
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/BasicLocalGovernment
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/PostalCode1988
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/AdministrativeNeighborhood
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/LegalStatusNeighborhood
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/Road
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/AdministrativeCity
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/Province
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/AdministrativeVillage
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/SpecialCity
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/si_gun_gu
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/si_do
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/ri
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/parent_road
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/landform
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/floor
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/eup_myeon_dong
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/road_name_number
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/congnamul_x
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/legal_status_neighborhood_code
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/administrative_neighborhood_code
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/congnamul_y
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/building_extra_number
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/ho
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/eup_myeon_dong_serial_number
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/building_number
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/administrative_building_number
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/si_gun_gu_code
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/eup_myeon_dong_code
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/beonji

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://rdfs.co/juso/kr/si_gun_gu
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/si_do
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/ri
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/parent_road
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/landform
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/floor
http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/eup_myeon_dong

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 P30: Equivalent classes not explicitly declared. 1 case | Important Important

This pitfall consists in missing the definition of equivalent classes (owl:equivalentClass) in case of duplicated concepts. When an ontology reuses terms from other ontologies, classes that have the same meaning should be defined as equivalent in order to benefit the interoperability between both ontologies.

• The following classes might be equivalent:
http://rdfs.co/juso/Township, http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/Town, http://rdfs.co/juso/Town, http://rdfs.co/juso/kr/Township

Results for P34: Untyped class. 24 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://rdfs.co/juso/Street
http://rdfs.co/juso/City
http://www.w3.org/ns/org#Organization
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Organization
http://rdfs.co/juso/Address
http://purl.org/dc/terms/MediaType
http://rdfs.co/juso/FirstLevelAdministrativeDivision
http://rdfs.co/juso/SecondLevelAdministrativeDivision
http://rdfs.co/juso/PostalCode
http://rdfs.co/juso/Province
http://rdfs.co/juso/Feature
http://creativecommons.org/ns#Work
http://purl.org/vocommons/voaf#Vocabulary
http://www.w3.org/ns/adms#SemanticAsset
http://rdfs.co/juso/FourthLevelAdministrativeDivision
http://rdfs.co/juso/Village
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person
http://rdfs.co/juso/Neighborhood
http://rdfs.co/juso/ThirdLevelAdministrativeDivision
http://rdfs.co/juso/District
http://rdfs.co/juso/Town
http://rdfs.co/juso/Point
http://rdfs.co/juso/County
http://rdfs.co/juso/Township

Results for P35: Untyped property. 6 cases | 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://rdfs.co/juso/second_level_administrative_division
http://rdfs.co/juso/fourth_level_administrative_division
http://rdfs.co/juso/thoroughfare_address
http://rdfs.co/juso/third_level_administrative_division
http://www.geonames.org/ontology#parentFeature
http://rdfs.co/juso/first_level_administrative_division

Results for P40: Namespace hijacking. 27 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#_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#_2
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#_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/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.

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://rdfs.co/juso/kr/parent_road


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