Evaluation results

There are three levels of importance in pitfalls according to their impact on the ontology:

Critical It is crucial to correct the pitfall. Otherwise, it could affect the ontology consistency, reasoning, applicability, etc.
Important Though not critical for ontology function, it is important to correct this type of pitfall.
Minor It is not really a problem, but by correcting it we will make the ontology nicer.

Pitfalls detected:

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.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Description
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Plan
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Theory
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Action
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Process
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#PhysicalArtifact
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Role
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#PlanExecution

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#hasComponent
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#includesObject
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#expresses
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isComponentOf
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isRealizedBy
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#satisfies
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isDefinedIn
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/IOLite.owl#isEncodedBy
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#hasPart
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#associatedWith
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#realizes
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#hasParticipant
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isReferenceOf
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isExpressedBy
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isAbout
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isConceptualizedBy
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#describes
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isSettingFor

• 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!

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://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isSettingFor
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#describes
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isConceptualizedBy
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isAbout
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isExpressedBy
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isReferenceOf
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#hasParticipant
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#realizes
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#associatedWith
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#hasPart
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isDefinedIn
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#satisfies
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isRealizedBy
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#isComponentOf
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#expresses
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#includesObject
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#hasComponent

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/IOLite.owl#Word
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/IOLite.owl#metaphoricallyBlendsWith
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/IOLite.owl#combinatoriallyRelatedTo
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/IOLite.owl#hasCulturalMixingWith

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/IOLite.owl#metaphoricallyBlendsWith
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/IOLite.owl#combinatoriallyRelatedTo
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/IOLite.owl#hasCulturalMixingWith

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/IOLite.owl#hasCulturalMixingWith
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/IOLite.owl#combinatoriallyRelatedTo
› http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/IOLite.owl#metaphoricallyBlendsWith

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/IOLite.owl#Speech, http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/IOLite.owl#Language

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.

Suggestions or warnings:

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:

	<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

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.

Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology.

Evaluation of Taxonomic Knowledge in Ontologies and Knowledge Bases. Proceedings of the Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop. Alberta, Canada.

Style guidelines for naming and labeling ontologies in the multilingual web.

Ontology Evaluation. PhD thesis.

Ontology evaluation. In Handbook on ontologies, pages 251-273. Springer.

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.

Weaving the pedantic web. In Proceedings of the WWW2010 Workshop on Linked Data on the Web, LDOW 2010, Raleigh, USA, April 27, 2010.

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.

“Linked Data - Design issues”. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html

Linked Data: Evolving the Web into a Global Data Space. Morgan & Claypool, 1st edition.

Is your linked data vocabulary 5-star?. http://bvatant.blogspot.fr/2012/02/is-your-linked-data-vocabulary-5-star_9588.html

Enter your ontology to scan:

Evaluation results

Pitfalls detected:

Results for P04: Creating unconnected ontology elements. Minor 8 cases

Results for P08: Missing annotations. Minor 57 cases

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. Important 18 cases

Results for P13: Inverse relationships not explicitly declared. Minor 17 cases

Results for P24: Using recursive definitions. Important 4 cases

Results for P25: Defining a relationship as inverse to itself. Important 3 cases

Results for P26: Defining inverse relationships for a symmetric one. Important 3 cases

Results for P30: Equivalent classes not explicitly declared. Important1 case 1 case

Results for P36: URI contains file extension. MinorOntology*

Suggestions or warnings:

SUGGESTION: symmetric or transitive object properties | 9 cases

References

[1] Aguado-De Cea, G., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Poveda-Villalón, M., and Giraldo-Pasmin, O.X. (2015).

[2] Noy, N. F., McGuinness, D. L., et al. (2001).

[3] Gómez-Pérez, A. (1999).

[4] Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Vila Suero, D., Villazón-Terrazas, B., Dunsire, G., Escolano Rodríguez, E., Gómez-Pérez, A. (2011).

[5] Vrandecic, D. (2010).

[6] Gómez-Pérez, A. (2004).

[7] Rector, A., Drummond, N., Horridge, M., Rogers, J., Knublauch, H., Stevens, R., Wang, H., and Wroe, C. (2004).

[8] Hogan, A., Harth, A., Passant, A., Decker, S., and Polleres, A. (2010).

[9] Archer, P., Goedertier, S., and Loutas, N. (2012).

[10] Bernes-Lee Tim. (2006).

[11] Heath, T. and Bizer, C. (2011).

[12] Vatant, B. (2012).

How to cite OOPS!