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:


Scanner by direct input:

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

Evaluation results

This results have been generated from AKT Reference Ontology (Portal Ontology) on 19th March of 2014. These results might be outdated if the original ontology changes.

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.

[Expand All] | [Collapse All]

Results for P07: Merging different concepts in the same class. 4 cases | Minor Minor

Results for P08: Missing annotations. 285 cases | Minor Minor

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. 50 cases | Important Important

Results for P13: Missing inverse relationships. 106 cases | Minor Minor

Results for P24: Using recursive definition. 4 cases | Important Important

SUGGESTION: symmetric or transitive object properties. 4 cases


  • [1] Gómez-Pérez, A. ''Ontology Evaluation''. Handbook on Ontologies. S. Staab and R. Studer Editors. Springer. International Handbooks on Information Systems. Pp: 251-274. 2004.
  • [2] Noy, N.F., McGuinness. D. L. ''Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology.'' Technical Report SMI-2001-0880, Standford Medical Informatics. 2001.
  • [3] Rector, A., Drummond, N., Horridge, M., Rogers, J., Knublauch, H., Stevens, R.,; Wang, H., Wroe, C. ''Owl pizzas: Practical experience of teaching owl-dl: Common errors and common patterns''. In Proc. of EKAW 2004, pp: 63–81. Springer. 2004.
  • [4] Hogan, A., Harth, A., Passant, A., Decker, S., Polleres, A. Weaving the Pedantic Web. Linked Data on the Web Workshop LDOW2010 at WWW2010 (2010).
  • [5] Archer, P., Goedertier, S., and Loutas, N. D7.1.3 – Study on persistent URIs, with identification of best practices and recommendations on the topic for the MSs and the EC. Deliverable. December 17, 2012.
  • [6] Heath, T., Bizer, C.: Linked data: Evolving the Web into a global data space (1st edition). Morgan & Claypool (2011).

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?


Related papers:

Web services:

Developed by:

OEG logo