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. 53 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:comment or skos:definition defined:
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#PolyhedralSurface
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#GeodesicString
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#AbstractGeometricPrimitive
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#CompositeCurve
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#MultiCurve
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#ArcString
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#OrientableCurve
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#CompositeSolid
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#LinearRing
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#ArcStringByBulge
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#BSpline
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Cone
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Curve
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Arc
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#PolynomialSpline
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#MultiSolid
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#LineStringSegment
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Clothoid
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#ArcByBulge
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Triangle
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#LineString
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#CircleByCenterPoint
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Solid
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#MultiSurface
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#MultiPoint
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#MultiGeometry
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#SplineCurve
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#AbstractCurveSegment
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#AbstractGeometry
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#OffsetCurve
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Shell
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Tin
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Ring
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#PolygonPatch
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Bezier
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#ArcByCenterPoint
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Surface
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#AbstractGriddedSurface
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#CompositeSurface
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Rectangle
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Circle
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Sphere
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#AbstractParametricCurveSurface
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Composite
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#TriangulatedSurface
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Cylinder
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Polygon
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#AbstractSurfacePatch
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#GeometricComplex
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#CubicSpline
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#OrientableSurface
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Geodesic
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Point

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. 13 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.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#exactMatch
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#narrowerTransitive
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#narrower
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#closeMatch
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#related
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#narrowMatch
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#mappingRelation
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#inScheme
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#broaderTransitive
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#broadMatch
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#broader
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#relatedMatch
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#notation

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 P13: Inverse relationships not explicitly declared. 53 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.

• OOPS! has the following suggestions for the relationships without inverse:
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8dc could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfEquals
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfEquals could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8po
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8po could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehDisjoint
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehDisjoint could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8ntpp
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8ntpp could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfOverlaps
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfOverlaps could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8ec
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8ec could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehCovers
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehCovers could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehInside
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehInside could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfWithin
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfWithin could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8tppi
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8tppi could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8eq
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8eq could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfDisjoint
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfDisjoint could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8ntppi
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8ntppi could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfTouches
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfTouches could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehCoveredBy
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehCoveredBy could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehOverlap
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehOverlap could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8tpp
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8tpp could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehMeet
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehMeet could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfIntersects
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfIntersects could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfContains
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfContains could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfCrosses
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfCrosses could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehEquals
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehEquals could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehContains

• Sorry, OOPS! has no suggestions for the following relationships without inverse:
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#hasGeometry
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#defaultGeometry
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#memberList
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#inScheme
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#mappingRelation
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#member
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#semanticRelation

Results for P32: Several classes with the same label. 13 cases | Minor Minor

Two or more classes have the same content for natural language annotations for naming, for example the rdfs:label annotation. This pitfall might involve lack of accuracy when defining terms.

• The following classes contains the same label, maybe they should be replaced by one class with several labels or might be equivalent classes:
http://www.opengis.net/ont/sf#MultiSurface, http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#MultiSurface
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#LinearRing, http://www.opengis.net/ont/sf#LinearRing
http://www.opengis.net/ont/sf#LineString, http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#LineString
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Triangle, http://www.opengis.net/ont/sf#Triangle
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#PolyhedralSurface, http://www.opengis.net/ont/sf#PolyhedralSurface
http://www.opengis.net/ont/sf#Polygon, http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Polygon
http://www.opengis.net/ont/sf#Curve, http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Curve
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Surface, http://www.opengis.net/ont/sf#Surface
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#Geometry, http://www.opengis.net/ont/sf#Geometry
http://www.opengis.net/ont/sf#TIN, http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Tin
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#MultiCurve, http://www.opengis.net/ont/sf#MultiCurve
http://www.opengis.net/ont/sf#MultiPoint, http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#MultiPoint
http://www.opengis.net/ont/gml#Point, http://www.opengis.net/ont/sf#Point

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. 27 cases

The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8dc
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfEquals
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8po
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehDisjoint
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8ntpp
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfOverlaps
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8ec
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehCovers
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehInside
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfWithin
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8tppi
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8tppi
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8eq
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfDisjoint
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8ntppi
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8ntppi
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfTouches
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehCoveredBy
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehOverlap
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#rcc8tpp
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehMeet
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfIntersects
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfContains
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfCrosses
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehEquals
http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#ehContains
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#semanticRelation


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