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. 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.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#DesignedSubstance
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#SpatioTemporalRegion

• The following elements have no rdfs:label defined:
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#InformationEntity

• The following elements have neither rdfs:comment or skos:definition defined:
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#BiologicalObject
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#WorkflowExecution
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Community
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#FunctionalSubstance
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#ChemicalObject
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Narrative
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Set
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isEventIncludedIn
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isObjectIncludedIn
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isTimeIncludedIn
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isCharacterizedBy
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isActionIncludedIn
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isAgentIncludedIn

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. 3 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://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#hasDataValue
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#hasParameterDataValue
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#hasRegionDataValue

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 P20: Misusing ontology annotations. 1 case | 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://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isAgentInvolvedIn

Results for P24: Using recursive definitions. 20 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://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Region
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Collection
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#PhysicalObject
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Event
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Concept
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#SocialObject
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Parameter
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Quality
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Task
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Role
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Object
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#farFrom
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#sameSettingAs
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isRelatedToDescription
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isRelatedToConcept
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#associatedWith
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#coparticipatesWith
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#hasCommonBoundary
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#overlaps
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#nearTo

Results for P25: Defining a relationship as inverse to itself. 9 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://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#farFrom
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#sameSettingAs
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isRelatedToDescription
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isRelatedToConcept
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#associatedWith
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#coparticipatesWith
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#hasCommonBoundary
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#overlaps
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#nearTo

Results for P26: Defining inverse relationships for a symmetric one. 9 cases | Important Important

A symmetric object property (owl:SymmetricProperty) is defined as inverse of another object property (using owl:inverseOf).

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#nearTo
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#overlaps
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#hasCommonBoundary
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#coparticipatesWith
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#associatedWith
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isRelatedToConcept
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isRelatedToDescription
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#sameSettingAs
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#farFrom

Results for P30: Equivalent classes not explicitly declared. 4 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.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Project, http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Task
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Situation, http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Place
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Design, http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Pattern
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Design, http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Plan

Results for P36: URI contains file extension. ontology* | Minor Minor

This pitfall occurs if file extensions such as ".owl", ".rdf", ".ttl", ".n3" and ".rdfxml" are included in an ontology URI. This pitfall is related with the recommendations provided in [9].

*This pitfall applies to the ontology in general instead of specific elements.

Results for P38: No OWL ontology declaration. ontology* | Important Important

This pitfall consists in not declaring the owl:Ontology tag, which provides the ontology metadata. The owl:Ontology tag aims at gathering metadata about a given ontology such as version information, license, provenance, creation date, and so on. It is also used to declare the inclusion of other ontologies.

*This pitfall applies to the ontology in general instead of specific elements.

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. 16 cases

The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#expands
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isConstituentOf
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isSuperordinatedTo
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isLocationOf
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#directlyFollows
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isSubordinatedTo
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isPreconditionOf
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#directlyPrecedes
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#hasLocation
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#hasConstituent
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#hasPrecondition
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isComponentOf
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isPostconditionOf
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isExpandedIn
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#hasPostcondition
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#hasComponent


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