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://oops.linkeddata.es/example/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 P04: Creating unconnected ontology elements. 5 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://purl.org/vocommons/voaf#VocabularySpace
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#Space
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Organization
http://purl.org/vocommons/voaf#Vocabulary
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person

Results for P08: Missing annotations. 46 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 no rdfs:label defined:
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#Vehicle
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#Lateral
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#FirstAfterGap
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#SoftAccelerate
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#Ahead
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#LastBeforeGap
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#SoftDecelerate
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#NotOvertaker
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#NoSpace
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#Decelerate
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#Position
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#Space
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#AfterGap
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#Overtaker
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#MaintainDistanceWithCarInFront
http://purl.org/vocommons/voaf#Vocabulary
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#ChangeLine
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#Accelerate
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#Action
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#BeforeGap
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Organization
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#MaintainSpeed
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#Behind
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#isActionDoneBy
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#doesAction
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#hasSpace
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#hasSpaceBehind
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#speedWithOvertaker
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#isOvertaking
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#speedWithAheadCar
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#beforeTheGap
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#movement
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#hasXValue
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#hasSpaceLateral
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#hasYValue
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#position
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#bigSpeedDifference
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#speedWithBeforeTheGapCar
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#hasSpeedValue
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#lastFirstBeforeAfter-TheGap
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#speedWith
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#isInFrontOfOvertaker
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#hasDirectionValue
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#hasSpaceAhead
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#speedWithBehindCar

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. 10 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.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#doesAction
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#isActionDoneBy
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#hasDirectionValue
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#speedWith
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#hasSpeedValue
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#position
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#hasYValue
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#hasXValue
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#movement
http://www.sensormeasurement.appspot.com/ont/transport/traffic#hasSpace

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 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 P34: Untyped class. 5 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://www.w3.org/2003/11/swrl#AtomList
http://www.w3.org/2003/11/swrl#Imp
http://www.w3.org/2003/11/swrl#DatavaluedPropertyAtom
http://www.w3.org/2003/11/swrl#ClassAtom
http://www.w3.org/2003/11/swrl#Variable

Results for P40: Namespace hijacking. 1 case | 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

• 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.


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

How to cite OOPS!

Poveda-Villalón, María, Asunción Gómez-Pérez, and Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa. "OOPS!(Ontology Pitfall Scanner!): An on-line tool for ontology evaluation." International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems (IJSWIS) 10.2 (2014): 7-34.


BibTex:


@article{poveda2014oops,
 title={{OOPS! (OntOlogy Pitfall Scanner!): An On-line Tool for Ontology Evaluation}},
 author={Poveda-Villal{\'o}n, Mar{\'i}a and G{\'o}mez-P{\'e}rez, Asunci{\'o}n and Su{\'a}rez-Figueroa, Mari Carmen},
 journal={International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems (IJSWIS)},
 volume={10},
 number={2},
 pages={7--34},
 year={2014},
 publisher={IGI Global}
}

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