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 P02: Creating synonyms as classes. 3 cases | Minor Minor

Several classes whose identifiers are synonyms are created and defined as equivalent (owl:equivalentClass) in the same namespace. This pitfall is related to the guidelines presented in [2], which explain that synonyms for the same concept do not represent different classes.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#Ballet_Performance
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#Opera_Performance
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#String_Quartette

Results for P04: Creating unconnected ontology elements. 4 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/net/ns/ex#Example
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Document
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person

Results for P08: Missing annotations. 16 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.kanzaki.com/ns/music#String_Quartette
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#Opera_Performance
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#Ballet_Performance
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Image
http://purl.org/net/ns/ex#Example
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Document
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator
http://purl.org/dc/terms/description
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/mbox
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/identifier
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/description
http://purl.org/dc/terms/alternative
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name

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. 21 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://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/mbox
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#source
http://purl.org/dc/terms/description
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#venue
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#presents
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#published
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#premiere
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#performer
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#soloist
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#program
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#composition
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#conductor
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#performs
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#plays
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name
http://purl.org/dc/terms/alternative
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#conductorName
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/description
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/identifier

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 relations could be defined as equivalent:
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#source, http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#description, http://purl.org/dc/terms/description

Results for P13: Inverse relationships not explicitly declared. 22 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://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#artist_description
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#plays
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#conductor
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#composition
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#description
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#program
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#soloist
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#premiere
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#published
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#event_description
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#presents
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#sections
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#represents
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#key
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#venue
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#derivedFrom
http://purl.org/dc/terms/description
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#composer
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#source
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/source
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/mbox

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. 5 cases | 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://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#Horn, http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#Trumpet
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#Alto, http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#Countertenor
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#Oratorio, http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#Cantata
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#Conductor, http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#Director
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#Musician, http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#Player

Results for P31: Defining wrong equivalent classes. 2 cases | Critical Critical

Two classes are defined as equivalent, using owl:equivalentClass, when they are not necessarily equivalent.

• The following classes might not be equivalent:
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#Ballet_Event, http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#Ballet_Performance
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#Opera_Performance, http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#Opera_Event

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. 1 case

The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/music#derivedFrom


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