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:


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:
https://schema.org/Organization
https://schema.org/DayOfWeek
https://schema.org/Event
http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/ObservableProperty
http://www.w3.org/ns/locn#Address
http://purl.org/dc/terms/Location
https://schema.org/ServiceChannel
http://www.w3.org/ns/legal#LegalEntity
https://schema.org/Person
https://schema.org/Place
http://www.w3.org/ns/locn#Geometry
https://schema.org/Offer
http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/Observation
https://schema.org/ContactPoint
http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/Sensor
https://schema.org/Service
https://schema.org/OpeningHoursSpecification
http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/hasResult
https://schema.org/availableChannel
http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/observes
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#timeZone
https://schema.org/itemOffered
http://www.w3.org/ns/locn#address
http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/observedProperty
https://schema.org/openingHoursSpecification
https://schema.org/offers
https://schema.org/servicePhone
http://www.w3.org/ns/locn#registeredAddress
https://schema.org/contactPoint
https://schema.org/hoursAvailable
http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/madeBySensor
https://schema.org/dayOfWeek
https://schema.org/provider
http://www.w3.org/ns/locn#location
http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/madeObservation
https://schema.org/areaServed
http://www.w3.org/ns/locn#geometry
https://schema.org/opens
http://purl.org/dc/terms/identifier
https://schema.org/itemCondition
https://schema.org/email
https://schema.org/availableLanguage
https://schema.org/endDate
https://schema.org/name
http://www.w3.org/ns/locn#postCode
https://schema.org/birthDate
https://schema.org/startDate
https://schema.org/description
https://schema.org/closes
https://schema.org/duration
http://www.w3.org/ns/locn#postName
http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/hasSimpleResult
http://www.w3.org/ns/locn#fullAddress
https://schema.org/legalName
https://schema.org/price
https://schema.org/serviceUrl
https://schema.org/priceCurrency
https://schema.org/gender
https://schema.org/alternateName

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.

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/ns/locn#geometry
https://schema.org/areaServed
http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/madeObservation
http://www.w3.org/ns/locn#location
https://schema.org/provider
https://schema.org/dayOfWeek
http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/madeBySensor
https://schema.org/hoursAvailable
https://schema.org/contactPoint
http://www.w3.org/ns/locn#registeredAddress
https://schema.org/servicePhone
https://schema.org/offers
https://schema.org/openingHoursSpecification
http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/observedProperty
http://www.w3.org/ns/locn#address
https://schema.org/itemOffered
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#timeZone
http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/observes
https://schema.org/availableChannel
http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/hasResult
https://schema.org/url
https://schema.org/alternateName
https://schema.org/gender
https://schema.org/priceCurrency
https://schema.org/serviceUrl
https://schema.org/price
https://schema.org/legalName
http://www.w3.org/ns/locn#fullAddress
http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/hasSimpleResult
http://www.w3.org/ns/locn#postName
https://schema.org/duration
https://schema.org/closes
https://schema.org/description
https://schema.org/telephone
https://schema.org/startDate
https://schema.org/birthDate
http://www.w3.org/ns/locn#postCode
https://schema.org/name
https://schema.org/endDate
https://schema.org/availableLanguage
https://schema.org/email
https://schema.org/itemCondition
http://purl.org/dc/terms/identifier
https://schema.org/opens

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 consists in declaring neither the ontology URI nor the xml:base namespace. If this is the case, the ontology namespace is matched to the file location. This situation is not desirable, as the location of a file might change while the ontology should remain stable, as proposed in [12].

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

Suggestions or warnings:


The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?
| http://www.w3id.org/urban-iot/core#includedInMobilityStation


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:




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:

Example: http://oops.linkeddata.es/example/swc_2009-05-09.rdf

Uncheck this checkbox if you don't want us to keep a copy of your ontology.





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}
}



OEG logo
ESTIINF logo


Escuela Técnica
Superior de
Ingenieros Informáticos

UPM logo


Universidad
Politécnica
de Madrid