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. 2 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/core/Device
http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#Point

Results for P08: Missing annotations. 1 case | 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:
https://saref.etsi.org/core/isMeasuredIn

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. 36 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/saref4envi/encapsulates
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/usesCommunicationInterface
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/hasTransmissionPeriod
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/hasGeometry
https://saref.etsi.org/core/measuresProperty
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/usesCommunicationProtocol
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/hasComponent
https://saref.etsi.org/core/makesMeasurement
https://saref.etsi.org/core/relatesToProperty
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/isContainedIn
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/hasDigitalRepresentation
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/hasColor
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/affectsProperty
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/projectsLight
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/contains
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/hasLightPoint
http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#location
https://saref.etsi.org/core/isMeasuredIn
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/isAccesibleThrough
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/isProjectedFromHeight
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/isProjectedInDirection
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/hasFrequencyMeasurement
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/isComponentOf
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/isConnectedTo
https://saref.etsi.org/core/hasValue
https://saref.etsi.org/core/hasTimestamp
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/hasTag
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/hasVersion
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/hasRevisionNumber
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/hasFlash
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/hasCreationDate
https://saref.etsi.org/core/hasManufacturer
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/hasProjectionAngle
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/hasShield
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/hasIdentifier
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. 17 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.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/hasFrequencyMeasurement
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/isProjectedInDirection
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/isProjectedFromHeight
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/isAccesibleThrough
https://saref.etsi.org/core/isMeasuredIn
http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#location
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/hasLightPoint
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/projectsLight
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/affectsProperty
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/hasColor
https://saref.etsi.org/core/relatesToProperty
https://saref.etsi.org/core/makesMeasurement
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/usesCommunicationProtocol
https://saref.etsi.org/core/measuresProperty
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/hasGeometry
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/hasTransmissionPeriod
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/usesCommunicationInterface

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:
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/System
https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/PhysicalObject

Results for P32: Several classes with the same label. 1 case | 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:
https://saref.etsi.org/core/Device, https://saref.etsi.org/saref4envi/Device


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