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. 3 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:
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/Yield
http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/Deployment
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/Intake

Results for P08: Missing annotations. 2 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.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#SpatialThing
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/based_near

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

Results for P13: Inverse relationships not explicitly declared. 24 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#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

Results for P20: Misusing ontology annotations. 16 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:
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

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 P24: Using recursive definitions. 2 cases | Important Important

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

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

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

Results for P32: Several classes with the same label. 2 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.w3.org/ns/sosa/Platform, https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/Platform
http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/Deployment, https://saref.etsi.org/saref4agri/Deployment

SUGGESTION: symmetric or transitive object properties. 2 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#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:


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

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