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. 26 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://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Service

• The following elements have no rdfs:label defined:
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/primaryTopic
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/homepage

• The following elements have neither rdfs:comment or skos:definition defined:
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#Agent
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#Role
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#Collection
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#SoftwareAgent
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#Organization
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#EmptyCollection
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#Entity
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#Activity
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#Location
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#Person
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#generated
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#invalidated
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#influenced
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasInvalidatedBy
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#specializationOf
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#entity
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#alternateOf
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#activity
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasGeneratedBy
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadPrimarySource
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadMember
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#agent
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#value

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. 25 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/ns/prov#influenced
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#contactPoint
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/homepage
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#landingPage
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#endpointDescription
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/primaryTopic
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#accessService
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#theme
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#notation
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#value
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#keyword
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#spatialResolutionInMeters
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#temporalResolution

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. 1 case | 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.w3.org/ns/prov#hadRole, http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#hadRole

Results for P13: Inverse relationships not explicitly declared. 69 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.w3.org/ns/prov#specializationOf could be inverse of http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#alternateOf
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#alternateOf could be inverse of http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasQuotedFrom
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasQuotedFrom could be inverse of http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadPrimarySource
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadPrimarySource could be inverse of http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasDerivedFrom
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasDerivedFrom could be inverse of http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasRevisionOf

• Sorry, OOPS! has no suggestions for the following relationships without inverse:
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#themeTaxonomy
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#servesDataset
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#theme
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#service
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#downloadURL
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#distribution
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#accessService
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#packageFormat
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#hadRole
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#compressFormat
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#accessURL
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#qualifiedRelation
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#endpointURL
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#record
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/primaryTopic
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#catalog
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#mediaType
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#endpointDescription
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#landingPage
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/homepage
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#dataset
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#contactPoint
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedQuotation
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedAssociation
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#atLocation
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadRole
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadGeneration
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadUsage
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedGeneration
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasStartedBy
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedPrimarySource
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#entity
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedAttribution
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#influencer
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#activity
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#used
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadPlan
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasAssociatedWith
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedDelegation
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasInformedBy
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedCommunication
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedEnd
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasEndedBy
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedInvalidation
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadActivity
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedInfluence
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedUsage
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedStart
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasAttributedTo
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedRevision
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#actedOnBehalfOf
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadMember
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#agent
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#qualifiedDerivation
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 P19: Defining multiple domains or ranges in properties. 2 cases | Critical Critical

The domain or range (or both) of a property (relationships and attributes) is defined by stating more than one rdfs:domain or rdfs:range statements. In OWL multiple rdfs:domain or rdfs:range axioms are allowed, but they are interpreted as conjunction, being, therefore, equivalent to the construct owl:intersectionOf. This pitfall is related to the common error that appears when defining domains and ranges described in [7].

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadActivity
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadRole

Results for P20: Misusing ontology annotations. 2 cases | 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.w3.org/ns/dcat#landingPage
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#byteSize

Results for P34: Untyped class. 6 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://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Document
http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#Kind
http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Service
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person
http://purl.org/dc/dcam/VocabularyEncodingScheme
http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Collection

Results for P35: Untyped property. 2 cases | Important Important

An ontology element is used as a property without having been explicitly declared as such using the primitives rdf:Property, owl:ObjectProperty or owl:DatatypeProperty. This pitfall is related with the common problems listed in [8].

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/page
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/maker

SUGGESTION: symmetric or transitive object properties. 11 cases

The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#catalog
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#specializationOf
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#alternateOf
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasQuotedFrom
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasInformedBy
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadPrimarySource
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasDerivedFrom
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#actedOnBehalfOf
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasInfluencedBy
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasRevisionOf
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 "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