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.w3.org/ns/ssn/Deployment
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/Yield
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/Intake

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://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#SpatialThing
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/based_near

• The following elements have neither rdfs:comment or skos:definition defined:
› http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/Deployment
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/Device
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent
› https://schema.org/Organization
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/Actuator
› http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/TAXRANK_0000000
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/Sensor
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/relatesToProperty
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/makesMeasurement
› http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/hasDeployment
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/isMeasuredByDevice
› http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/hasSubSystem
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/measuresProperty
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/relatesToMeasurement
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/controlsProperty
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/isMeasuredIn
› http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/TAXRANK_1000000
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/member
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/hasState
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/isControlledByDevice
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/hasTimestamp
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/hasValue

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:
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/isControlledByDevice
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/hasState
› http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#long
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/member
› http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/TAXRANK_1000000
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/isMeasuredIn
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/measurementMadeBy
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/isMeasurementOf
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/isMemberOf
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/hasMeasurement
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/controlsProperty
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/accomplishes
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/relatesToMeasurement
› http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/inDeployment
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/isCommandOf
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/isLocatedIn
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/hasReceived
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/isContainedIn
› http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#location
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/hasFunction
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/hasID
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/hasMember
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/hasCommand
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/hasProperty
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/managesFarm
› http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/deployedSystem
› http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/hosts
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/generates
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/isDeployedAtSpace
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/measuresProperty
› http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/hasSubSystem
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/isPropertyOf
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/hasDeploymentPeriod
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/isLocationOf
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/contains
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/isMeasuredByDevice
› http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/hasDeployment
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/receives
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/actsUpon
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/makesMeasurement
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/isAccomplishedBy
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/based_near
› http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/deployedOnPlatform
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/relatesToProperty
› http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/isHostedBy
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/hasName
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/hasValue
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/hasHarvestDate
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/hasDeathDate
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/hasTimestamp
› http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#alt
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/hasManufacturer
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/hasPlantDate
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/hasModel
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/hasBirthDate
› http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#lat
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/hasDescription

• 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.

• OOPS! has the following suggestions for the relationships without inverse:
› http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfContains could be inverse of http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfWithin

• Sorry, OOPS! has no suggestions for the following relationships without inverse:
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/relatesToProperty
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/based_near
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/actsUpon
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/isMeasuredByDevice
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/hasDeploymentPeriod
› http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/hasSubSystem
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/measuresProperty
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/isDeployedAtSpace
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/generates
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/managesFarm
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/hasID
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/hasFunction
› http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#location
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/relatesToMeasurement
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/controlsProperty
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/isMeasuredIn
› http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/TAXRANK_1000000
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/member
› http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#hasGeometry
› http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#long
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/hasState
› https://saref.etsi.org/core/isControlledByDevice

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:
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/Platform
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/WateringValve
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/ID
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/EatingActivitySensor
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/MovementActivitySensor
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/MilkingSensor
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/WateringSystem
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/WeightSensor
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/Thermometer
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/hasReceived
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/isContainedIn
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/managesFarm
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/isDeployedAtSpace
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/hasDeploymentPeriod
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/isLocationOf
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/contains

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.

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.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#SpatialObject
› http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent

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:
› https://schema.org/Organization, http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/System

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:
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/Platform, http://www.w3.org/ns/sosa/Platform
› https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/Deployment, http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/Deployment

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.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfContains
› | http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql#sfWithin

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 3 cases

Results for P08: Missing annotations. Minor 25 cases

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. Important 57 cases

Results for P13: Inverse relationships not explicitly declared. Minor 24 cases

Results for P20: Misusing ontology annotations. Minor 16 cases

Results for P22: Using different naming conventions in the ontology. MinorOntology*

Results for P24: Using recursive definitions. Important 2 cases

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

Results for P32: Several classes with the same label. Minor 2 cases

Suggestions or warnings:

SUGGESTION: symmetric or transitive object properties | 2 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!